1 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether there are plans to complement commercial supply of antigen rapid test (ART) kits from overseas suppliers with the increase in manufacturing capacity of locally produced ART kits.
\tThe Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Low Yen Ling) (for the Minister for Trade and Industry): Mr Speaker, MOH has received applications from six ART companies which are in various stages of evaluation by MOH and Health Sciences Authority (HSA). The applicants indicated that the kits will be manufactured or assembled locally. Once approved, the companies will be able to apply for existing grant and loan schemes that MTI and its Statutory Boards provide to support companies with their plans for local manufacturing.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.
\tMr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (Chua Chu Kang): I thank the Minister of State for the response. It is heartening to know that there are six companies that are keen to make or assembly ART kits here. This is very welcome news, indeed. I understand from a recent Straits Times article or report last year that there are, currently, two local manufactured ART kits that are being approved for use within a clinical setting with professional guidance, but they were not able to obtain the necessary validations for approval to sell on the retail market because most local hospitals are too busy to carry out clinical trials of the kits.
I have three follow-up supplementary questions. First, will there be any particular consideration that could hold back the approval of these six companies' applications that have been announced? Second, what are the considerations when approving an ART kit for retail sale? Third, what steps are being taken to mitigate the risk posed by connectivity disruptions to ensure a good, steady and healthy supply of ART kits to Singapore? Appreciate the clarifications.
\tMs Low Yen Ling: Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to thank the Member Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim for his three supplementary questions. Mr Speaker, globally, the demand for ART kits has increased in various countries, including Singapore, as we move towards making testing for COVID-19 part and parcel of our lives and also, in a way, to keep the virus in check. Here, we have seen an increase in the demand for ART kits amidst the latest Omicron wave and also during the recent festive period.
In addition, more Singaporeans are practising social responsibility with regular self-testing. So, to Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim's third question on ensuring the connectivity and continuous supply of ART kits, I want to reassure him and everyone in the House that the Government has been able to respond to heightened demand due to our multi-pronged strategy of diversification, stockpiling and also by working very closely with the importers, distributors, retailers to ensure that Singapore and Singaporeans have continual and sufficient supply of ART kits.
Firstly, the Singapore Government keeps a reserve of ART kits to mitigate any sudden surge in demand or disruption of supplies. During the recent spike of Omicron cases, MOH drew down on its stockpile to supplement the retailers' supply of testing kits. Prior to that, Members would probably remember that the Government distributed close to 25 million ART kits to households in Singapore just last year. If Members remember, the two distribution drives – the first was between August and September, and the second drive was between October and December – saw that each household received a total of 16 ART kits. So, I want to assure Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim that the Government spares no effort in ensuring the continued supply of ART kits which is critical to living in the new normal.
Secondly, we diversify our sources of ART kits by importing from multiple sources. Currently, as I indicated in my answer to the Parliamentary Question (PQ), there are no companies locally manufacturing or assembling ART kits that are approved for retail sale yet. So, we welcome the application of the six companies seeking to assemble or manufacture ART kits in Singapore.
To his first two supplementary questions about testing, requirements and approval process required for retail sale, I want to share with Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim and Members that only ART kits that have been evaluated to meet the stringent standards of quality, safety and performance and, at the same time, verified for its accuracy when used by consumers, will be made available for retail sale.
For example, ART kits have to undergo a separate route for approval where they are being benchmarked against PCR tests. Why is this necessary? Because MOH has explained that these self-test ART kits are to be used widely by members of the public in self-test settings. So, the implications on public health will be huge and significant if the kits that are approved for self-test are not sufficiently accurate.
Besides the 12 self-test ART kits that have been approved by MOH and HSA for retail sales, I want to assure Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim that MOH is also actively evaluating other ART kits for their eligibility. The brands, Alltest and Indicaid, have just obtained the Pandemic Special Access Route (PSAR) approval and will soon be on our retail shelves this month.
Two other brands called Biocredit and Hotgen have obtained satisfactory analytical validation results and are in the midst of obtaining their PSAR registration prior to clinical validation.
We hope that we will continue to have more options and wider supplies of ART kits from here as well as from abroad.
Thirdly, we work very closely with various partners, importers, distributors and retailers to plan ahead and ensure that affordable stocks of ART kits are constantly on-stream for Singaporeans.
I want to assure Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim that MTI, together with MOH and HSA, will continue to make the supply of ART kits our key priority and will provide ample support for the development and expeditious evaluation of ART kits, including local ones, to ensure quality self-test kits for Singapore's protection and safety.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
\tMr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I ask the Minister of State will the local manufacture of ART kits be expected to reduce the price of ART kits, which can benefit consumers? I am asking this because the current price of over $5 per kit can still be a cost burden on many families who are all on quarantine or Health Risk Notice (HRN) and are expected to test regularly.
I note from personal experience that a number of free ART kits given out at the vending machines to individuals on HRN seem to have been reduced from six to three. Can I confirm that this is the case?
\tMs Low Yen Ling: Mr Speaker, I want to thank the Member Mr Gerald Giam for his questions. I mentioned the multi-pronged approach and the third prong that I mentioned is that MTI will continue to work closely with our importers, distributors and retailers to bring in various brands of self-test ART kits and to give choice and options to consumers.
If Members remember, in the last one year – we now have a wider supply of ART kits and, as of now, MOH and HSA have already approved 12, with more coming on-stream – the price of test kits has since fallen by almost half. Most recently, I went to either Guardian or Watsons, and you can buy an ART kit for about $4.90.
Having said that, I want to assure Mr Gerald Giam that, indeed, price is one of the considerations as part of MOH and HSA's evaluation criteria. And I want to assure Singaporeans that, regardless of financial background, if you remember last week, MOH has announced the setting up of more than 200 Combined Testing Centres (CTCs) and Quick Testing Centres (QTCs), where any COVID-19 patient with mild symptoms can proceed to for supervised self-test ART kits usage. At the same time, members of the public can make appointments at any of the QTCs and CTCs.
At the same time, MOH and MSF have also distributed about 140,000 kits to low-income households.
So, I want to assure Mr Gerald Giam and Members in the House that we will press on with our multi-prong approach to ensure that Singaporeans have access to continued supply of ART self-test kits.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
\tMr Leon Perera (Aljunied): Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for her reply. Just one supplementary question, further to what my colleague Mr Gerald Giam was talking about. I heard one report that a PCR test was actually substantially cheaper in a neighbouring country, compared to Singapore. I am not sure how accurate that is or whether it is still the case. But my supplementary question is, looking at the countries in the region which have large populations, has the Government explored doing bulk purchase agreements, working together with other ASEAN countries, to negotiate with the manufacturers of these test kits, whether PCR or ART, as a way of lowering the price?
\tMs Low Yen Ling: Mr Speaker, I want to thank the Member Mr Leon Perera for his supplementary question. I want to assure him that an important part of our multi-prong approach is to diversify our import sources. In fact, we import from various locations, including South Korea, US, Hong Kong and China. So, we will press on with our efforts, not just in terms of importing from multiple sources to bring choice and, in general, to further lower the price of ART kits, but, at the same time, to work with local companies or Singapore-based companies which have the intention or interest to manufacture or assemble ART self-test kits here.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Silver Generation Officers Involved in Outreach and Home Visit Activities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"2 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Minister for Health (a) how many Silver Generation Office ambassadors and staff are currently engaged in outreach activities; and (b) in each of the last three years, how many (i) home visits and (ii) telephone check-ins have been conducted.
\tThe Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health (Ms Rahayu Mahzam) (for the Minister for Health): The Silver Generation Office (SGO) has deployed about 3,000 staff and volunteers as Silver Generation Ambassadors (SGAs) to proactively reach out to seniors.
Since 2014, SGO has made over one million engagements. In 2019, SGO made 339,000 home visits. In 2020, SGO adapted their engagement approaches during the COVID-19 pandemic and made 140,000 home visits, complemented by an additional 140,000 telephone check-ins.
In 2021, SGO pivoted to encouraging and assisting our seniors’ COVID-19 vaccinations, reaching out to 168,000 and 11,000 seniors through home visits and telephone check-ins respectively.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Mariam Jaafar.
\tMs Mariam Jaafar (Sembawang): I think a lot has been raised in this House of the concerns for the mental wellness of our elderly. As the COVID-19 pandemic drags on, it has been quite a while since some of them have had house visits. Can the Ministry also talk about the forward-looking plans? Will we bring the house visits back to the level of about 300,000 and when will that happen?
\tMs Rahayu Mahzam: I thank the Member for the questions. Indeed, the COVID-19 pandemic has caused a shift in the way SGO reaches out to these seniors. To move forward, we also need to understand the genesis of the SGO. SGO was previously known as the Pioneer Generation Office (PGO) and it was established to reach out to Pioneers relating to the PG package and tell them about the various Government schemes, MediShield and CHAS.
When it then evolved in April 2019 to merge with AIC, the expanded scope was then to reach out to another bigger group. So, initially, it was a smaller group; and it extended to a bigger group. That was for the Merdeka Generation Package.
In 2020, SGO then had to adjust and pivot, to shift into doing house visits as well as tele-engagements with the vulnerable group. And this is also something that we need to continue looking at. I understand the concerns because the elderly are at home and they are not able to engage. There are a lot of efforts that we are doing with other partners as well, to make sure that this engagement continues.
We recognise that SGO's mandate is now to go beyond just communicating Government schemes to better address their needs in a more targeted manner. So, SGO has been working with the Regional Health Systems clusters, primary care and community care Partners to instil preventive health messaging in seniors in the community, so that they can also augment the support and engagement that they, through the SGAs, have been giving.
We are hoping to continue to build on this relationship, so that we can expand that effort and also look at targeting areas, especially with more frequent visits to at-risk seniors, including those who are frail or have weak social support. We are also enhancing the competency of the SGAs to engage our seniors more effectively, so that they can continue to stay active and mentally engaged as well.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Mandatory Rest Day for Migrant Domestic Worker and Ensuring a 24-Hour period of Uninterrupted Rest","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"3 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Manpower when implementing the mandatory rest day for migrant domestic workers at the end of 2022, whether the Ministry intends to define the rest day as a full 24-hour period of uninterrupted rest.
\tThe Minister of State for Manpower (Ms Gan Siow Huang) (for the Minister for Manpower): Mr Speaker, MOM had earlier announced our plan to introduce the policy of requiring employers to provide their migrant domestic workers (MDWs) with at least one rest day a month that cannot be compensated away. This is to provide MDWs with opportunities to rest and recharge from work and to form a network of support outside the household.
We do not intend to define the number of hours of uninterrupted rest for MDWs in a given rest day. Different households have different arrangements with their MDWs based on their respective needs. If MOM prescribes a fixed number, it will impose rigidity on both employers and MDWs. What is more important is that the employer and the MDW maintain open communications on their respective needs and come to a mutual agreement on the rest day arrangement.
If MDWs and their employers need help to reach an agreement on the rest day arrangement, they may call MOM’s MDW helpline for advice. They may also seek assistance from a neutral third party, such as their employment agencies, or consider utilising the free dispute resolution services offered by the Centre for Domestic Employees (CDE) and the Foreign Domestic Worker Association for Social Support and Training (FAST) to arrive at an amicable solution.
The rest day policy will be implemented towards the end of 2022. This is to give existing employers and their MDWs time to adjust to the new policy.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Thank you, Sir, I thank the Minister of State for the reply. Could I just ask how MOM will be monitoring and enforcing this mandatory rest day rule? Also, what action will be taken against employers who do not give their foreign domestic workers this mandatory rest day?
\tMs Gan Siow Huang: MOM will be communicating to the employment agencies as well as to the employers on the requirement for this mandatory rest day policy. And MDWs, as well as their support network, or the neighbours who are concerned or have observed that MDWs are not being given the mandatory rest day, can highlight this to MOM or associations, such as CDE and FAST, so that assistance can be rendered promptly.
MOM also regularly conducts checks on employers, as well as the migrant domestic workers, to make sure that the migrant domestic workers and the employers are getting along well and the MDWs are getting sufficient rest.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Complaints About Veterinarians and Proposal to Form Professional Body for Self-regulation","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"4 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for National Development (a) for each year over the last three years, how many complaints pertaining to veterinarians have been received by the Animal Veterinary Service; (b) of which, how many have resulted in (i) warnings, (ii) fines and (iii) suspension or revocation of licences; and (c) what is the average duration between the filing of a complaint and conclusion of the investigation.
5 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for National Development (a) how are members of the current veterinary Complaint Evaluation Committee selected; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider the formation of a professional board, similar to the Singapore Medical Council, to regulate veterinary practice.
The Minister of State for National Development (Mr Tan Kiat How) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, can I take Question Nos 4 and 5 together, please?
Mr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tMr Tan Kiat How: Mr Speaker, veterinarians are licensed and regulated by the Animal and Veterinary Service, or AVS, for short. As part of the licensing conditions, veterinarians are required to comply with the Code of Ethics for Veterinarians, which sets out the expected professional standards of conduct. Veterinarians who fail to adhere to the rules of conduct may be subject to professional discipline, including written warnings, composition fines and even suspension or revocation of their licences.
Over the last three years, AVS received a total of 65 veterinary complaints, comprising 15 cases in 2019, 25 cases in 2020 and 25 cases in 2021. Of these cases, 10 veterinarians were issued warnings and one was issued a compound fine. None was suspended or had his/her licence revoked.
AVS investigates complaints on professional misconduct or negligence. Investigations can take up to 12 months or longer, as AVS needs time to gather the evidence, including detailed medical records and accounts from all parties, to make a thorough assessment. In complex cases, AVS will seek inputs from veterinary practitioners with the relevant experience and expertise. Such veterinary complaints may be presented to the Complaint Evaluation Committee, or CEC, for short, for further assessment. The Committee appointed by AVS comprises AVS veterinarians, practising veterinarians and non-affiliated legal professionals to ensure that the complaints are evaluated robustly.
AVS is working with the Singapore Veterinary Association to raise professional standards of the veterinary sector. We are exploring a number of ideas to advance the standards and practices of the sector, including the possible establishment of a professional entity. We are consulting veterinarians, vet para-professionals and vet service users to seek their views and will share more details when ready.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
\tMr Leon Perera (Aljunied): I thank the Minister of State for his answer. Just two supplementary questions.
The first is on the timeframe. Currently, the investigations can take a year or more. I think, recently, the regime for handling disciplinary issues for doctors for human beings was also revamped and overhauled, partly with the view to reducing the time that issue is hanging over the head of the veterinarian. So, is the Ministry considering ways to reduce that time taken for the investigation?
Secondly, in terms of what the Minister of State said on reviewing the structure of regulation and considering a professional or elected body, that is good news. Is there a timeframe when this review is targeted to be completed, roughly?
\tMr Tan Kiat How: I thank the Member for the two supplementary questions. On the first question about timeframe, indeed, this is something that we are very mindful of for any investigation where the complainant and the accused are being looked into. As I have mentioned earlier, NParks – or AVS in specifics, a part of NParks – looks into the investigations for a thorough evaluation. We have to interview all the parties concerned; we have to look at thorough medical records.
And for animals, which, in a way, perhaps unlike for human beings, we need to bring in the relevant veterinary practitioners with expertise. For example, if the animal is a frog, rabbit, hamster, dog or cat, we may require different expertise to join the panel – the Complaint Evaluation Committee – to look into this matter. And this is something that we are mindful of, in making sure that the process is robust, objective and thorough.
I take Mr Leon Perera's point about whether we could look into shortening the process. This is something that we have to discuss with our stakeholders in the veterinary sector, as well as the different users of the vet services. And we certainly look at this as part of the overall review that we are doing.
On the second question around the setting up of the professional body or entity that was mentioned in my reply, allow me to contextualise it to the Member. This is part of the overall broader pet sector review, which I spoke about also in response to the Member's question yesterday. We are looking at raising standards of professionalism across the entire pet sector, from boarders, breeders, to animal welfare groups, veterinarians, trainers, to individual users; and we are doing so collectively. The intent is to bring different stakeholders together to understand the issues and one another's perspectives and come to a common consensus on how we are to move together, with the welfare of the pet at the centre of what we do.
As part of this pet sector review, we are also engaging the veterinary sector and this is something we are looking at in terms of the various parts of the standards. Indeed, this is something that is ongoing and we hope to share more details when ready.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of Cases Prosecuted for Illegal Import and Export of Endangered Species in the Past Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"6 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for National Development of the cases prosecuted for the illegal import and export of endangered species in the past five years, how many involved (i) the person prosecuted is only delivering the endangered species and is not the seller and (ii) the person prosecuted is the seller of the endangered species.
\tThe Minister of State for National Development (Mr Tan Kiat How) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, Sir, from 2017 to 2021, 18 cases were prosecuted for the illegal trade of endangered species under the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act, or ESA, for short. In seven of these cases, the persons prosecuted were involved only in transporting the endangered species. There was no evidence they were selling the species or keeping the species for their personal use.
Of the remaining 11 cases, the persons prosecuted in four cases were found to be transporting the endangered species to sell the species. The persons prosecuted in the other seven cases were found to be transporting the endangered species for their personal use.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Thank you, Sir. Two quick clarifications. I think that is the worry on the ground, that we are only catching the runners and not making an effective dent on the illegal wildlife trade. So, could I ask the Minister of State whether NParks is looking into the money trail, doing financial audits for each of the wildlife crime cases that we are handling?
Secondly, is NParks working with the financial institutions to ensure that they are filing suspicious transaction reports related to wildlife crime?
\tMr Tan Kiat How: On the first question, Mr Speaker, NParks and foreign enforcement agencies have not found any associations with illegal wildlife trade syndicates or organised crimes in Singapore or overseas in the 18 cases at this point in time.
Specifically, to the seven cases where the persons prosecuted were involved only in transporting the endangered species, NParks did not find any evidence that other persons in Singapore were involved. The investigation findings were also shared with INTERPOL and the source and destination countries, if we know them, for further investigations. We have not received any information from INTERPOL or our foreign enforcement agency counterparts that these persons were acting as part of a larger organised crime syndicate or network.
In response to the Member's second question, I would also like to refer the Member to the reply to his Oral Question in the Sitting on 2 November 2020, where Mr Ong Ye Kung replied on behalf of Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, Senior Minister and Minister in-charge of MAS. In the reply, Minister Ong Ye Kung gave a fuller reply around the various rules and regulations in place to look at illegal wildlife trade and money laundering and organised crimes.
But I would just also direct the Member's attention to the part of the reply, which I think addresses his question, about having public-private partnerships playing an important role in our effort to combat illegal wildlife trade and money laundering.
The Government has enhanced the collective understanding of illegal wildlife trade risks by sharing case studies and red-flag indicators with banks, traders, agents who apply for trade permits and this has helped them to better detect and report suspicious fund flows linked to illegal wildlife trade.
Notwithstanding that, we will continue to be vigilant to the threat posed by illegal wildlife trade and related money laundering. NParks will work closely with other agencies, like MAS and the other enforcement agencies, in this regard.
Mr Speaker: Order. End of Question Time. The Clerk will now proceed to read the orders of the day.
[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos 9 and 10 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix. The remaining Questions have been postponed to a later Sitting of Parliament or withdrawn.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Debate on Annual Budget Statement","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [18 February 2022] [3rd Allotted Day], (proc text)]
[(proc text) \"That Parliament approves the financial policy of the Government for the financial year 1 April 2022 to 31 March 2023.\" – [Minister for Finance]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Question again proposed. (proc text)]
Ms Carrie Tan (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, I am thankful that Minister Lawrence Wong mentioned mental health in his Budget speech this year.
With COVID-19, the mental health of care workers, caregivers – and I shall refer to them as \"carers\" – has deteriorated significantly in the past two years. Many news articles have come out recently, documenting the stress that they have come under due to the disruptions brought about by the pandemic, whether they were social workers, teachers, healthcare workers, mental health workers or informal caregivers.
As my colleague, hon Member Mr Louis Ng, mentioned in his speech last evening, 56% of social workers had mild to severe anxiety during the past two years. Such statistics point to an increased risk of burnout amidst a lengthy pandemic and, in the longer term, of an increasingly unattractive care sector. It is not surprising that 1,500 medical workers resigned in the first half of 2021, when many of them worked too long hours, with inadequate manpower and support.
Burnout occurs when people feel overburdened and depleted of emotional and physical energy. Some effects of burnout include loss of motivation, negativity, a sense of failure, self-doubt and a cynical attitude towards others, as well as a loss of empathy. Empathy is the bedrock of caring professions and it runs short when people feel burnt out.
What quality of care can we reasonably expect when those who toil in our care professions and social services are stretched too thin? In charting a new way forward together, we need to protect the well-being of those who take on the work of caring for others, because people can only provide quality care to others when they themselves are well physically, mentally and emotionally.
Two things are vital to ensure quality care: adequate capacity and adequate recognition.
We need to provide sufficient resources and support to carers so that no one burns out. We also need adequate recognition through reasonable compensation and opportunities for advancement to boost morale and motivation and ensure that the care industry remains sustainable in the long term. Most people who chose the care professions are motivated by a strong desire to care for others and very few are calculative about monetary contributions and compensation. However, we should still take good care of them and ensure that they have the means to sustain themselves.
Hence, my first recommendation is to enhance financial support for informal caregivers. I urge the Government to increase the quantum of the Home Caregiving Grant (HCG) for informal caregivers and implement \"Carefare\".
Many caregivers shared with me in focus groups last year that they struggled to pay for outpatient expenses that are inadequately covered under MediSave. Such costs add to a family's financial burden, especially for those who had little choice but to give up their jobs and income to care for ageing parents, special needs children or mentally-afflicted family members.
The pandemic also made caregiving responsibilities and expenses heavier because care resources, like daycare centres and domestic workers, were short in supply, as shown in a survey done by the Singapore Alliance for Women in Ageing (SAWA) in 2020.
Enhancing HCG will go a long way to lighten their load because finances have shown to be the most significant source of stress for informal caregivers. I suggest that we tier the HCG according to the care recipient's needs and associated expenses. Care recipients who require assistance with more activities of daily living (ADLs) can and should be supported with higher amounts of HCG.
Carefare is what I proposed before as a scheme similar to Workfare, but for lower-income individuals who provide full-time care to their loved ones, not by choice, but by circumstance. Many caregivers who had to quit their jobs suffer a loss of self-identity, decreased self-worth and emotional stress. Often, the family members who are not personally involved in care work fail to understand how demanding it is. Carefare is one way we can provide crucial financial relief and offer recognition to informal caregivers for the labour of caregiving. I will now speak a few words in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I recommend that the Government enhance financial support for informal caregivers. I urge the Government to increase the quantum of the Home Caregiving Grant for informal caregivers and implement \"Carefare\".
Many caregivers shared that they faced various challenges, including not being able to pay for outpatient expenses that are inadequately covered under MediSave. Such costs add to a family's financial burden, especially those who had little choice but to give up their jobs and income to care for their ageing parents, special needs children or mentally-inflicted family members.
According to a survey done by the Singapore Alliance for Women in Ageing in 2020, the pandemic made care resources like daycare centres and domestic workers short in supply, aggravating the financial burden and pressures faced by caregivers. Because finances are the most significant source of stress for caregivers, improving the Home Caregiving Grant will go a long way to lighten their load.
Carefare is what I propose as a scheme similar to Workfare, but for lower-income individuals who provide full-time care to their loved ones, not by choice, but by circumstance. Many caregivers who had to quit their jobs suffer a loss of self-identity, decreased self-worth and emotional stress. Family members who are not involved in the actual care work also often fail to understand how demanding it is. Carefare is a way to provide crucial financial relief and offer recognition for the labour of caregiving.
(In English): Second, we need to ensure adequate national resourcing for social work, social services, healthcare and mental health care to be adequately staffed and well-protected from work hazards. Beyond salaries, we can do more to enable them in their work and support them in their well-being.
In the healthcare sector, on top of burnout, cases of nurses being physically or verbally abused and even sexually harassed by patients are increasing. More preventive steps need to be taken to ensure that healthcare workers remain safe and supported at work. I encourage MOH to look into proactive policies in hospitals and other healthcare settings to protect our healthcare workers from abuse. We could also consider amending our laws to toughen punishments for those who abuse healthcare workers, to send a very clear signal that such behaviour will not be tolerated.
Beyond just improving salaries, we need to ensure safety, support and adequate staffing, to retain and develop individuals in the care sector for as long as possible to adequately meet the needs of our ageing population.
Similarly, we need to protect our teachers from burnout. The role and workload of teachers have expanded drastically over the years. Yet, teachers face more challenges as well as increased expectations of them, with home-based learning and the rising concern over our youths' mental health.
In October last year, there was a letter written from a Mr Ng Wei Yang to The Straits Times and his plea went, \"My wife's a teacher. Can I have her back with my family please?\" I have spoken about this before in Parliament and I caution again about putting dual responsibility on teachers to double up as counsellors amidst an already overwhelming workload. Although teacher-counsellors will have a reduced teaching load, I am concerned about whether they will have sufficient bandwidth and emotional capacity to do both effectively while maintaining their own mental health.
Some teachers shared with me that providing students with some form of basic counselling is already part of their role and they do it quite organically. However, I am concerned that formalising this role could create even more expectations by parents and the public towards teachers. The mental health of our teachers is next on the line if we continue to load them with too many expectations. I hope MOE will augment its efforts in this area with effective stakeholder communication towards parents.
On top of that, other than being trained in youth psychology, the Ministry could consider adding on training in family therapy for school counsellors. School counsellors need to be well-versed in the everyday struggles faced by youths, including those they may encounter within their families. Other skills, such as mediation, could be helpful to foster and bridge relationships between students and their parents, especially during the difficult adolescent years.
Within the wider community, I urge MOE, MSF and MOH to jointly resource and enable the training of mental health responders and volunteers from the grassroots to be empathic listeners.
Our People's Association (PA) grassroots network has been a formidable and dependable way to reach out to residents in times of need, from mask distribution to mobilisation for vaccination and, in pre-COVID-19 times, organising activities to bring people together. We can tap on this network further, provide targeted training to suitable members and build their capabilities in one-to-one care support to residents.
Social Service Agencies (SSAs) can partner PA to train and equip volunteers as befrienders in the community for anyone who needs a non-judgemental listening ear and guidance on further resources for help. Someone facing mental health struggles may not need to see a counsellor if they feel listened to early on in their difficulties. Those who require more attention and expertise can be advised by the befrienders on where to get more support.
This pool of volunteers serve to help distribute and mitigate the care load from the limited number of existing professional counsellors until we can train more to handle the needs in the system. I am piloting this in Nee Soon South with the support of Yishun Health and HPB this year, and I look forward to share our learnings to help build this care network model in Singapore.
Lastly, we need to enable SSAs to improve their capacity-building capabilities. Increasing funding from private, corporate and philanthropic donors can reduce SSAs' reliance on Government funding and the Government's administrative workload.
I am heartened by the Budget announcements that the Government will provide a $100 million top-up to continue the dollar-for-dollar matching to donations to charities until end 2024. We should use such support to encourage private philanthropists and corporate donors to finance capacity-building in Singapore's SSAs for roles and headcounts, such as volunteer management, marketing and communications and fundraising.
Getting multiple sectors to sponsor and support diverse and value-adding job roles to careers in SSAs will make the sector more attractive and vibrant for Singaporeans. This helps to increase the non-profit sector's capacity and bring three wins: one, it reduces the stress that SSAs often experience due to public funding limitations and large reporting and bureaucratic requirements; two, it allows for more experimental approaches to support vulnerable communities; and three, it frees up Government monies to be directed to the professional training of additional social workers and healthcare workers.
The Charities Capability Fund by MSF as well as the Community Capability Trust are steps in the right direction and I am glad for the $26 million top-up to these efforts. I look forward to the implementation details and hope it will be a simple process for SSAs in its execution.
Mr Speaker, a mentally healthy nation is a strong nation. The mental health of those who take on the brunt of care work in our country is an immediate priority. We need to help redistribute their care load. In the year ahead, I urge more attention and creative resourcing to look after the mental health of our carers. In Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] A mentally healthy nation is a strong nation. If we could provide better care for our caregivers, they will be able to better look after more people.
(In English): I look forward to coordinated plans by MOH, MOE and MSF to enhance their support and care of our care workers. If we take better care of our carers, they can care better for many more. Notwithstanding the above that begs further attention, I fully support the Budget.
Mr Speaker: Ms Rahayu Mahzam.
Ms Rahayu Mahzam (Jurong): Mr Speaker, the Budget announcements mean different things to different people. Many look out for what the Government is planning to do to address day-to-day cost of living issues. Some look out for whether the Government will do more to address their areas of concern and the matters they champion.
For the Members of this House, the Budget debate and the Committee of Supply debate provide the opportunity for us to talk about issues that are close to our hearts and to highlight areas for the Government to look at more deeply. For me, it is also an opportunity to share about everyday heroes who advocate for important issues in the community, who quietly work hard to improve their lives and those of others and, in their own ways, contribute to nation-building. There are two people I would like to speak about today.
I want to first introduce you to Dr Chen Shiling. Dr Chen is a medical doctor trained in internal medicine and who has special interests in dementia and intellectual disability (ID). When she was in Junior College, she had the opportunity to volunteer at MINDS, to provide support to individuals with ID. She shared candidly that, in the beginning, the experience was daunting and, after her first session, she was not certain if she would do it again. Despite her reservations, she continued to help out at MINDS over the years.
After graduating from medical school and becoming a doctor, she volunteered in her free time to give medical care to patients with ID. This is challenging because, typically, patients with ID also have multiple medical issues. Aside from that, what Dr Chen came to realise was that it was also necessary to track the health and well-being of their parents and caregivers. Patients with ID depend on their caregivers for many things, including, but not limited to, compliance with medication, nutrition and therapies. Their health, largely, depends on the ability of their caregivers to manage their care. This means that the health and well-being of the caregivers also needed to be addressed, especially as they age. Dr Chen, therefore, developed a holistic healthcare approach for ageing caregivers and their adult children with ID, addressing also social issues and bringing together multidisciplinary stakeholders on the same platform. This is a fairly niche area relating to healthcare and, although seemingly illogical, it is a refreshing and efficient approach to the issue. Only someone in the sector and familiar with working with such families would appreciate the specific challenges they face and curate the appropriate solutions.
I believe this area of work is very important. We have heard, in recent times, the call to provide more support for families with children with special needs. I will touch more on this in my speeches for the COS debate. I am happy that the Government has responded to this call. In particular, Minister Chan Chun Sing’s and Minister Masagos Zulkifli’s replies to recent Parliamentary Questions gave assurance that the Government will continue to strengthen efforts and will work with the community to provide this support and build an inclusive society.
Dr Chen has been championing this cause of caring for patients with ID and their caregivers as a family unit for many years. She has been working with Government agencies to see how this effort can be made accessible to more in Singapore. As a parent of a child with ID, I am heartened and glad that there are people like Dr Chen, who looks out for the needs of those with special needs and their caregivers. They do not only volunteer their time but seek to find solutions to make things better for others, especially for those who are vulnerable. Dr Chen shows how it is so important to walk the talk. She does not just give comments and expect the Government to come up with the solutions, but she has come up with substantive and constructive plans, tirelessly working with partners and taking effort to implement the ideas.
The other person I would like to talk about today is Mr Hafiz Kasman. Mr Hafiz is a graduate from Singapore Management University (SMU), who co-founded Kinobi Asia. Mr Hafiz was a consultant, and Kinobi initially started as a movement during COVID-19 to help prepare students for the working world. Mr Hafiz and his friends-turned-partners started conducting webinars on career role models and tips on how to get into different industries. They saw great success for a few months in a row. There would be an average of about 200 to 300 participants at each of these webinars, which they initially held for young people in Singapore but, subsequently, also organised for youths in the region. Mr Hafiz realised from there that there is a big under-served market of students preparing for jobs.
I believe this is also an area that the Government is keenly aware of. In the past year, career uncertainty has remained a top concern among two in five job-seeking youths, based on NYC’s youth sentiment polls, February to December 2021. The pandemic has reshaped the economy, made some sectors less desirable but also created new opportunities. Those who were about to enter the workforce had to adjust, like everyone else, and prepare for this new world. For several years, even before the pandemic, the Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) had developed their career guidance framework. When the pandemic hit, these services needed to be strengthened and updated to address current needs. There were efforts by NYC and Young NTUC to provide resources for the youths to learn about growth sectors and how to prepare themselves for the working world.
For example, the YouthTech Programme launched by NYC for youths to gain work insights in the increasingly important area of technology and digitalisation, creates pathways for young people to learn new skills and gain tangible experiences. Another example is the career symposium entitled LIT DISCOvery organised by Young NTUC as part of the SkillsFuture month in July last year. There were online webinars, workshops as well as virtual mentoring and masterclasses to equip youths and young working adults with the necessary technology and soft skills to pivot into new and evolving job roles in the growth sectors.
I think the provision of support for our youths remains acute and necessary. Aside from career guidance, mentoring should also be an area that the Government continues to develop.
In fact, Mr Hafiz, whom I was speaking about, is, himself, a champion of mentoring. He is the co-Chairman of the Mentoring AfA and also oversees Mara Mentoring, one of the M3 programmes, which aims to accelerate the career and personal progression of high-potential Malay/Muslim undergraduates, by connecting them to a dedicated community of successful early career professionals.
Mr Hafiz has also managed to turn his passion into a business opportunity. What started as a series of webinars during COVID-19 has, today, become a business set-up, with 51 university partners across Indonesia, Singapore and the Philippines using its services. Kinobi provides free career tools and services for all students, such as resume-builder and job preparation courses, augmented with a job portal. Kinobi sees itself as the technology partner for university career services, driving a systemic change. They create, replace and augment the institution’s career platforms, enabling career services staff to do more to serve their student population.
Mr Hafiz said that Kinobi is thriving with the support of the Government and the Singapore ecosystem. The SG StartUp Grant was a great catalyst in helping his team to do this full-time. They also had guidance from Enterprise SG as well as the Singapore Business Federation in getting them plugged into the regional ecosystem. His alma mater, SMU, has supported them via their incubator, by connecting them to the alumni based in Indonesia and by partnering with Kinobi across initiatives like SMU Fintech Symposium.
Dr Chen Shiling and Mr Hafiz Kasman, our people, are pieces of the puzzle in realising our vision of a fairer, more inclusive society. In renewing and strengthening our social compact, the Government needs to address areas of concern, especially of groups which are vulnerable and have been most affected by the pandemic. But part of the deal must be that of active participation of our people in augmenting Government efforts.
My ask is, therefore, as follows.
Firstly, I hope the Government continues to channel funds for better services and support for families with children with special needs. The needs are acute and varied and we need the Government to provide the framework for whole of society to come on board in this journey of making our society more inclusive.
Secondly, it is important that the Government builds on efforts to support young individuals to explore career opportunities. There is value in enhancing the resolution of this support through developing the framework for mentoring. Many of us have had the good fortune of meeting someone in our lives who has guided us, shown us what is possible and brought us to a completely different trajectory in our lives. Not everyone, or every young person, is as fortunate. We should build an ecosystem of support, a culture of mentoring, so that every young person, regardless of his or her background, has the chance to be guided to find and seize all the opportunities that come their way.
Thirdly, aside from the Government's efforts, Singaporeans also need to play their part. Many Members of this House have spoken about this, too. This should not just be a platitude. The Government needs to be responsible for providing the fiscal framework for the economy to thrive and provide the infrastructure for many dimensions of support for different demographics in the community. However, there are many opportunities for all of us to fill in the gaps and propel our community forward. Mr Speaker, in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In renewing and strengthening our social compact between the Government and society, the Government has the responsibility to address the issues faced by those who are in need or have been most affected by the pandemic. Nonetheless, all of us also have a role to participate actively in all efforts to help uplift the community.
My hope is that, firstly, the Government continues to channel funds to increase support for families with children who have special needs.
Their needs are varied and we need the Government to provide a framework for the whole of society to work hand in hand to build a more inclusive Singapore.
Second, the Government should continue to provide opportunities for our young people to explore career opportunities. It would be good to build on efforts to create a mentoring ecosystem, so that every young person gets the support they need to succeed.
Third, every Singaporean must participate in efforts to build the nation. The Government needs to think of ways to ensure that our economy continues to progress and provide support for various groups in society. However, there is much we can do to uplift our community. All of us have to play a part.
(In English): Mr Speaker, to me, the Budget goes beyond just fiscal considerations but reflects our priorities and shapes what we become as a nation. A Budget channels funds, creates opportunities and empowers individuals. However, it is not the be-all and end-all and should not be so. The Budget supports various areas of concern and initiatives that impact Singaporeans. But it is not omnipotent. We need more Dr Chens and Mr Hafizs, Singaporeans with the heart and grit to do their bit for the community and seize opportunities with the support from the Government.
This year’s Budget debate is carried out against the backdrop of many unsettling international developments. I hope we can find solace in the strength and unity of our people, to share the load and take advantage of the opportunities before us. The Budget is a significant driving force towards the creation of better prospects and empowerment of individuals, as we chart our new way forward together. Mr Speaker, I support the Budget.
Mr Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.
Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am heartened by the Government’s continued commitment to do its utmost to provide the necessary assistance and support to help Singaporeans cope with the rise in the cost of living and the impending increase in GST, from food to utility bills, service and conservancy charges, and more. The monies set aside for the assistance packages are substantial. Though these can offset the GST increases for up to 10 years for the lowest income group, we should continue to look out for those among us who need more support.
However, faced with higher costs in their daily expenses, from the prices of food and drinks to other grocery bills, Singaporeans are feeling the pinch constantly. Every day, when people have to pay the extra 20 cents or 30 cents more for their beverages and 50 cents more for their food, they feel squeezed. The elderly and retired feel such financial pressures especially keenly. So, that adds an additional layer of stress and anxiety to their lives.
It is, therefore, important to remind worried Singaporeans that there is a package to help offset these increases, through this package, as well as other support schemes that are in place. The planned GST hike will also be delayed and staggered, which is welcome. However, it will be especially helpful to provide some reassurance that the Government is watching the inflation rate very closely and will consider additional support measures when necessary.
As for our elderly residents living in private estates, I have also received some feedback that they do not receive as much assistance. Yes, they do receive assistance but, understandably, it will be less than HDB dwellers. I urge MOF to consider highlighting the various payouts to all residents in both public and private housing estates through a letter or email to them or a mode of communication that they are comfortable with. Though this might alleviate some stress, I would still appeal for more consideration of some cases, as they do have genuine circumstances that do warrant more support.
Our sandwich class. Singaporeans in the middle-income group have always felt that they are “sandwiched” as their incomes are not rising as fast as the inflation rate. On the other hand, they are not receiving as much help as the lower-income groups and, yet, they are contributing taxes and also have to grapple with increased prices.
They feel strongly that the incremental revenue needs to come from the affluent and not the middle-income sandwich class, considering that our taxes are still low, compared to countries we are competing against. Some have suggested taxing capital gains and dividends and increasing them progressively. However, I know that we are not taking that route today as it will not help to attract investors and companies coming to set up shop in Singapore. But I do sincerely hope that the Government watches this space carefully so that the sandwich class does not feel squeezed.
On the Employment Pass issue, I have also received feedback from some residents that foreigners’ salaries seem to be going up faster than local salaries. This is actually a misunderstanding of our EP policy. There is misinformation going around regarding this and the misperception has to be corrected.
They are referring to the minimum qualifying salary for new EP applicants which will be raised from $4,500 to $5,000 and, for the financial services sector, from $5,000 to $5,500. So, this change is, in fact, a higher barrier to foreigners and to get employers to hire locals for job functions at this salary level instead of foreigners.
Some Singaporeans have misunderstood this to be pushing employers of new EP applicants to give them a salary increment, instead of the intent of this change, which is to put up a higher barrier. I hope that MOM can continue to watch out for such employment trends in the months to come and to be ready to take firm action if employers are found to be abusing the system at the expense of local staff.
Turning to hawker trade heritage, a topic very close to many of us and our hearts, affordable food in our hawker centres has helped to keep the cost of living manageable. These delicious dishes are loved by all income groups. Unfortunately, many of our hawkers do not have successors for their trade. Their children are not interested, as many have jobs which do not require long hours on their feet over a hot stove. But I do know that many of our ageing hawkers do want to hand down their recipes and techniques so that their food can continue to be enjoyed by future generations.
I hope to hear about the progress of the Hawkers Succession Scheme (HSS), which facilitates the pairing up of a retiring veteran hawker with an apprentice, so as to pass down his or her culinary skills, recipes and hawker stall to the aspiring successor.
May I suggest that NEA facilitate the transition and pay the veteran hawker the appropriate compensation amount while the skills are taught to the apprentice? The compensation sum should reflect the value of the heritage recipe and technique. In turn, the apprentice could be bonded to the stall for a period of, say, three years, for example; if I may say so, similar to a Government scholarship with a bond. This will help to keep our hawker trade alive and ensure that our hawker culture stays on the UNESCO Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity.
We should also start reviewing how we can transform the hawker trade. How can we improve the work conditions so as to attract more younger hawkers? Is it possible to improve productivity in the hawker trade, ensure fair prices, rest and medical care? I have already seen some hawkers adopting machines to automate their cooking or other processes and we have seen how most of our hawkers have now adopted digital payments. We will, therefore, need to review all aspects and think out of the box to keep our hawker traditions alive. Singapore will, definitely, not be the same without our hawkers and we have to put in greater efforts to support the hardworking men and women who labour every day to fill our stomachs with delicious and affordable meals. Sir, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Our hawker centres offer delicious and affordable dishes, which are loved by all the people from all income groups. Unfortunately, many hawkers have no successors and their children are not interested to take over their business. But our ageing hawkers do want their recipes and techniques to be passed on.
May I suggest to the authorities to consider setting up a special scheme for veteran hawkers with appropriate compensation for them to impart their recipes and skills to apprentices? Compensation can reflect the value of the recipes and culinary techniques.
After the apprentice has inherited the stall, he must work for a certain period of time, for example, three years, at the stall. This will help to keep our hawker traditions alive and ensure that our hawker culture will be preserved under the UNESCO Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity.
(In English): Sir, I conclude with my support for the Budget.
Mr Speaker: Mr Mark Chay.
Mr Mark Chay (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, like many Members of Parliament, I am deeply troubled by the conflict in Ukraine. I echo Minister Vivian Balakrishnan’s sentiments that Singapore cannot accept the unjustified attack by one country on another. This was a clear violation of the Olympic Truce.
Mr Speaker, I was on calls last night with, first, the Ukrainian Esports Federation and, second, the IOC Athletes Commission. Hearing the Ukrainian athletes and what Ukraine is going through is truly heartbreaking.
The sporting world is aligned with the Minister’s position that the sovereignty, political independence and territorial integrity of countries, big and small, must be respected. Sports will continue to stand for values. Sports will continue to stand for peace.
My thoughts and prayers are with the citizens of Ukraine today.
I now turn to speak on the Budget. I rise in support of this today and I consider that the Budget is a sensible one that balances the long- and short-term needs of the country. It also focuses on national development in a sustainable manner that addresses the challenges posed by climate change.
As some of you know, yesterday was Founders’ Day and as our motto goes, “The best is yet to be”. So, today, in keeping with this motto, I shall raise three issues which I believe can bring our society to new heights.
One, how do we, as a society, manage the rising cost of living? Two, how do we ensure a safe and sensible reopening of Singapore? And, three, as we look forward into the future, how do we create a better and more conducive space for the development of the sports in Singapore?
I speak, first, about managing the rising cost of living in Singapore. This is a concern which many hon Members and colleagues have raised, in particular, the effects of rising costs felt, primarily, by the sandwich class and youths in Singapore today.
On the GST hike, what is welcomed is the implementation of GST in stages which enables Singaporeans to plan and make provisions for the increase. I am comforted that the Government has considered cushioning measures to lessen the impact of the GST increase and fully support the top-up of $640 million to the Assurance Package.
I also note that low-wage workers and seniors are considered, with cash payouts to seniors, as well as the raising of the income threshold of the GST Voucher (GSTV) scheme.
Although the cushioning measures are generous, the rising cost of living is a concern and I raise three issues in this regard.
First, GST is expected to rise to 9% by 2024 and there is also going to be an increase in the carbon tax. Given additionally that the rising tensions in Europe are expected to bring an increase in energy prices, I am concerned daily living expenses will increase significantly.
Second, on manpower, I am also concerned about the adjustments to the foreign worker policies, in particular, the rise in minimum qualifying salaries for S-Pass holders and the impact of these adjustments on the hospitality, F&B and construction industries. Would such measures increase the costs of labour which would, ultimately, be borne by the end consumer?
The cost of living in Singapore will also impact Singapore’s competitiveness in being able to attract talent from overseas. We need to keep a close eye on this.
Finally, investing in our people is the right step forward. I wholeheartedly support a review of the programming at IHLs to not only provide quality continuing education and training, but also to prepare Singaporeans with skills to take up job opportunities in the market. But we must not forget our seniors and persons with disabilities (PWDs) in this endeavour. How would we enable PWDs to access job opportunities? Is there more that we can do in this endeavour?
I believe that addressing these concerns will not only lay the foundation for the successful implementation of these measures but also create a liveable and affordable Singapore.
I now move on to talk about my second point – ensuring a safe and sensible reopening of Singapore. As Singapore takes a positive posture to reopening and leans on the possibilities of a COVID-19-endemic world, I would like to take a moment to thank our frontliners and immigration officers for their hard work and dedication over the past two years in ensuring the health and safety of Singaporeans and its visitors.
Our airports, seaports and causeways are the first and last experience Singaporeans and tourists have of Singapore. I would like to suggest resources be allocated to our ports of entry to ensure safe, reliable and efficient transit of Singaporeans and visitors, thus, maintaining Singapore’s competitiveness as a hub for business and travel.
With events returning to Singapore, such as the Singapore Rugby 7s in April, the Singapore Grand Prix in October and many other MICE events on the calendar, I hope the MTF will consider not only safe management measures (SMMs) that balance the safety of participants, officials and spectators, but also the viability, practicality and experience of these events.
At the AFF Suzuki Cup in December 2021, a maximum of 10,000 fans were allowed into the 55,000-capacity National Stadium. The SMMs did not allow for food and drinks to be consumed at the venue. This was a start, nonetheless.
Many of the international events require minimum spectator numbers and ticket sales to break even. Enabling food and drinks to be consumed at these venues is also part of the experience of watching a live event. It would be good if distinctive SMMs as well as the administration of these SMMs can be considered for such events organised at venues, such as the Singapore Sports Hub.
The sports industry has been hit hard since the start of the pandemic. Productivity has been low because of the nature of the industry. Things are picking up; things are getting better. One group I would like to focus on are the operators that service children who are unvaccinated. Because of the SMMs, they are unable to operate productively. These operators perform an important function – introducing physical skills to toddlers and tweens. They feed our development and competitive programmes. If we do not help them, we will see the effects in our competitive sport pipeline in the future.
The fitness industry has also been affected since the start of the pandemic. Gyms have seen a steady decline in their memberships. And although SMMs have eased, what would really move the needle for the big box gyms would be to increase the maximum capacity of these facilities to over 50 if the minimum size requirements are met. Boutique gyms also are suffering. Reducing the physical distancing requirement between individuals from two metres to 1.5 metres would make a huge difference in terms of sustaining their businesses.
I am thankful for Minister Lawrence Wong’s continued support for the sports and arts sectors. The Sports and Arts Resilience Grants have helped the sector with some relief and I hope they will continue to be available for organisations that are still affected by the pandemic.
On my third point, I would like the Ministry to encourage the growth of sports in Singapore.
Before I move on to this point, I would like to declare that I am the Chairman of the SNOC Athletes’ Commission, a coach at the Singapore Disabilities Sports Council and a Director of the Global Esports Federation.
The year 2021 has been a terrific year for Singapore sports. We were all inspired by the fantastic performances of our athletes in Tokyo and sang the Majullah Singapura twice at the Tokyo Aquatics Centre. As an Olympian, I am very thankful to the Members of this House who supported the Motion to recognise Team Singapore’s performances at these Olympics and Paralympics. As Yip Pin Xiu’s coach, I am thankful that Pin Xiu’s achievements were recognised and she was awarded the President’s Award for Inspiring Achievement by President Halimah just two weeks ago.
Singapore had several athletes become world champions last year. Aloysius Yapp became Singapore's first number-one-ranked pool billiard player. In bowling, Shayna Ng won gold at the IBF Super World Championships. In e-sports, Singapore's DOTA-2 Women's Team comprising Sheng Ying \"KazeL\" Ho, Hui Chun \"Merody\" Tay, Amanda \"bings\" Lim, Joanne \"Minkiey\" Lim and Paula \"xiaoma\" Teo clinched the gold medal in a close final against Team Great Britain at the Global Esports Games. To cap off a fantastic year, shuttler Loh Kean Yew did us all proud by winning the 2021 Badminton World Federation World Championships title. These performances inspire us, ignite the competitive fire within us and redefine our definition of what is possible.
Mr Speaker, Team Singapore takes the international stage multiple times this year at the Southeast Asian Games, ASEAN Para Games, Commonwealth Games, Asian Games and Asian Para Games. This, as well as the various world and regional championships and qualifiers our athletes compete in.
I would like to ask for additional support for our Team Singapore athletes as they prepare to fly our flag high at these events.
Behind every athlete is an entourage that comprises our sports scientists, coaches and sports administrators. I would like to request for more resources to bolster up their capabilities and enable our athletes to achieve greater performances.
As many of our Team Singapore athletes are also National Servicemen, I would like to encourage greater collaboration between MINDEF and MCCY to enable our Team Singapore athletes to continue fulfilling their National Service obligations and requirements, whilst being able to train, compete and bring glory to Singapore.
National Sports Associations (NSAs), like many of our charities, were not able to conduct events. This will, no doubt, affect the national team performances downstream. Essentially, many of our youth and development athletes have lost two years of physical literacy and competitive experience. I would like to suggest additional resources be put into NSAs for community participation and development programmes.
Hosting and organising events are another vehicle for the sports industry to grow and develop.
In December 2021, Singapore hosted the inaugural Global Esports Games (GEG21). This event had a staggering 500 million accumulated views and a peak live viewership of 4.4 million. With the support of SportSG, Singapore Tourism Board and the National Youth Council and many others, the event was able to showcase Singapore as an e-sports and gaming hub and proved that Singapore had the capability to host such properties and do it well.
The GEG21 showcased how gaming and entertainment in the metaverse could look like as we look towards the future. When I speak of the metaverse, I mean the seamless merging of our physical and digital worlds. For example, the opening ceremony with Singaporean artist Shigga Shay performing live on stage in a motion capture suit being beamed into the metaverse as an avatar was a sight to behold. We should anticipate more Singaporeans spending time in the metaverse and draft parameters to govern it, its uses, potential hazards and protections for citizens, for example.
During GEG21, we also saw local technology firm, Refract, showcase \"active e-sport\" which it co-created with traditional sports body, World Taekwondo Federation. If you are wondering what e-sport is, it is using the entire body as a controller competing in virtual reality. This breaks down physical limitations, such as age, gender and physical size. Why do I raise these points? Because I think they will go a long way towards enhancing and cultivating the uniqueness and strength of Singapore. I urge you to consider them with an open mind and imagination. I look forward to more conversations on these topics to best position Singapore to continue leading and innovating globally.
Mr Speaker, that concludes the three issues that I wish to contribute to this session. I raise these issues because they will contribute towards enhancing and cultivating the fabric of Singapore's society. I believe the best is yet to be and I am excited about the possibilities in these aspects, strengthening our Singapore Core and identity.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
Mr Leon Perera (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to start by referencing a memoir written by Ms Liyana Dhamirah called \"Homeless\". Ms Liyana's memoir traces her journey as a young mother sleeping rough in \"crazy rich\" Singapore. She, eventually, got back on track with the tenacity to fight stigma, with support from social workers and a spot of luck with generous friends. There are many people in Singapore like Liyana who have pulled themselves up to thrive.
But, Sir, my Budget speech this year is not about individual actions. It is about ensuring our policies are designed to substantially reduce poverty and decisively break the poverty cycle for all children born into poor families.
Sir, Budget 2022 does provide some benefits to lower-income groups. However, I will argue that we need to substantially improve access to support in three ways.
First, access to support for the well-being and dignity of the poor. Second, access to programmes that give a leg-up to children in poor homes. And third, access to employability support for those at risk of being stuck in low-income jobs or long-term unemployment. Such support should be provided in a holistic, results-oriented way.
NGOs, volunteers and ground-up charitable initiatives all have a role to play. But they should not be doing the heavy lifting when it comes to funding action against the root causes of poverty. They should be providing the \"heartware\" to help those who need it, while we maintain a strong baseline of state support, on top of which, NGOs and the community can layer personalised effort, expertise and passion.
As a country, we have stood up to national challenges like the threat to our water supply and the COVID-19 pandemic.
A major effort to wage war on poverty is not just something we can afford – it is something we must do. Our pledge to build a society based on \"justice and equality\" calls on us to act. But beyond that, investing in additional anti-poverty and early intervention action for poor children may reduce the incidence of persons needing social welfare support in future. Such investments may unlock talent for our economy, which would raise GDP and the tax base.
The World Economic Forum's inaugural Global Social Mobility Report 2020 estimates that if Singapore is able to increase its performance by 10 points on the index, the resulting growth would add S$3.2 billion to our economic output every year.
In this sense, investing in anti-poverty action is like making adult vaccines free – it may more than pay for itself in the longer term.
Last and most importantly of all, a war on poverty would strengthen the foundations of social solidarity in our nation and help realise the promise that we truly have everyone's back.
One response to what I have said thus far would be – well, we are already waging a war on poverty, we are already doing it. We have programmes like ComCare, KidSTART, Workfare, Silver Support, the work of bodies like MENDAKI, CDAC, SINDA and so on and so forth.
But let us take a look at some of the objective evidence.
In Food Bank Singapore's 2020 Hunger Report, 10% of Singaporean households experienced food insecurity at least once in the last year. Two in five experienced it at least once a month. I do meet some Singaporeans who experience food insecurity when we engage constituents, as, I am sure, do other Members of this House.
In a Parliamentary Question reply, I was told that even as Safe and Sound Sleeping Places run by community partners were scaled up in 2021, their utilisation rate was 93%. This is a rate our hotels would be envious of.
From another Parliamentary Question reply, I learnt that we have about 4,000 children living in 1-room rental flats and about 18,000 in 2-room rental flats. I estimate that this means that the average living space per child in such flats is just 10 square metres, 60% less than the average living space per person in Singapore.
Research by academics led by Prof Ng Kok Hoe and Prof Teo You Yenn concluded that a single elderly person realistically needs a minimum of around $1,400 per month for basic necessities and $6,400 per month for a family of four. Yet, 100,000 people in our local workforce earn a gross income of less than $1,300 per month. I do not have a figure for the families of four or more earning less than $6,400 per month but it must be significant.
The last Household Expenditure survey shows that, on average, households in the bottom 20% spent more than they earned.
On social mobility, the available data shows a worrying trend. A 2019 MOF study of intergenerational income mobility found a high degree of mobility for those aged 44 to 53 today. However, this generation came of age at a time of rapid expansion of the economy. Younger Singaporeans today face a completely different set of challenges, such as high housing prices and high income and wealth inequality.
One study by Prof Irene Ng, based on a 2002 survey dataset, concluded that 58% of the income advantage of Singapore parents was being handed down to their children, a level similar to the USA at that time. In 2015, the Principal of Raffles Institution said that the school enrolment was exhibiting a class skew that it did not have in the past.
Some baby boomers made a windfall from property and this shows in our parallel problem of wealth inequality. My colleague, Sengkang Member of Parliament Mr Louis Chua has spoken about wealth inequality and cited quite a few data points which I would not repeat here.
But we also need to look beyond statistics to the lived experiences of Singaporeans to fully understand why this matters. A 2018 CNA survey found that it was class and not race or religion that was the most divisive factor in Singapore. It also found that those identified as upper class were more likely to feel a greater sense of belonging and national pride than those identified as lower class.
In a 2018 poll by Blackbox Research, seven in 10 Singaporeans felt that income inequality in Singapore had worsened over the past five years, with youths and young working adults more likely to feel anxious about the unequal distribution of income.
Sir, let me now move to specific policy calls.
Before I begin, to set some context, the assistance that is provided to the poor is not always channelled through a one-stop shop. Assistance schemes and ad hoc help are available from different agencies and the process of navigating this ecosystem can be stressful and daunting.
In fact, the Government's \"kueh lapis\" approach of multiple lines of assistance may, in fact, levy an unnecessary bandwidth tax on the poor when they seek help. \"Bandwidth tax\" refers to the additional cognitive burden they face. To get support from multiple schemes, they personally have to fill up paperwork, produce documents, attend meetings and meet deadlines. And because they struggle, their cognitive functioning is impacted and they may make what many others see as \"poor\" decisions. As a result, they become entangled even more deeply in the poverty cycle. One study found that the bandwidth tax due to poverty can be the equivalent of 13 to 14 IQ points.
Poor families would benefit from having one window for state support and also to have that support scaled up and follow more of a results-driven, account management approach.
Sir, let me now expand on my recommendations for poverty alleviation and employability support.
Firstly, we should increase the accessibility of state schemes. I will suggest four ways to do this.
The first involves us currently having too many financial assistance schemes that confuse and overwhelm their applicants. These include CDC vouchers of various kinds, ComCare and the Pioneer Disability Fund, for example. We should aim instead to minimise the number of scheme distributors and not have applicants being referred from one organisation to the next.
What I propose is that all state schemes be funnelled through a central account manager, with one such manager paired to each poor family. Social workers at Family Service Centres (FSCs) seem to me to be best placed to play this role. These account managers should be empowered to channel and administer all state schemes. They should also have visibility on schemes that are automatically administered, like Silver Support and Workfare, so that they can also address issues or errors there and so that they can take a more holistic view of the family's situation.
To mirror the one account manager for social welfare support, each poor family and low-income worker should have one account manager in charge of employability at WSG. That manager should be empowered and mandated to coach the worker to access the large array of work and training schemes. Their mandate should not merely be process-driven, meaning they should not be limited to training them on CV-writing techniques or asking them to sign up to passive job alerts. But they should also proactively work with their beneficiaries to assess different opportunities and find the right one, like a consultant and coach would do.
I have spoken in this House previously on how some state employability counsellors in some other countries take a results-driven approach.
An employability account manager for the disadvantaged would also be in a position to nudge their beneficiaries to upskill or reskill to move out of \"at-risk\" jobs before they are made obsolete. This recommendation is linked to my earlier call to expand the supply of such training and conversion places.
The second issue involves the current process of applying for financial assistance being too complex and exhausting. For example, the interviewing of family members by agencies, in some cases, is unnecessary. Some applicants are deterred from pursuing their Financial Assistance applications because of the humiliation that they would feel if agencies call their relatives. I repeat my call for Financial Assistance to be provided based on declarations as to whether family support is being obtained, without the need for interviewing family members, and with strong disincentives associated with making false statements.
Next, when seeking Financial Assistance, ComCare Short- to Medium-Term Assistance currently gives assistance for an average of only six months. To avoid the uncertainty and stress that comes with having to renew the support every few months, a longer-term grant can be given, albeit tied to conditions which I will touch on in a minute. This addresses the disruption of some beneficiaries having their Financial Assistance suddenly cut off when they find a job or increase their pay beyond a certain threshold. There should be a certain runway where the Financial Assistance continues after such events to enable the beneficiary to settle debts, to adapt to the new income structure and so on.
Next, on the Financial Assistance application process. Applicants are sometimes asked to produce various documents that they may no longer have. Some are asked to hold physical meetings at the SSO office, which can be very hard for them if they are taking care of young children or working. Can social workers visit beneficiaries more frequently at their homes, which would help them to better assess their living conditions? And this is a topic that I have raised before. Can we convince more beneficiaries also to grant the agency direct access to past records residing with banks or Government agencies so that the absence of documents does not become the impediment it often is?
Thirdly, let me address how we can increase the quantum of Financial Assistance available based on the beneficiary committing to positive actions that would help them and their family. More financial assistance can be provided beyond the current scheme caps, but tied to various conditions about which the welfare account manager is best placed to decide.
These may include, firstly, commitment to ensure attendance of children at early intervention programmes, such as KidSTART, or attendance at school for families where absenteeism is an issue. This follows the Bolsa Família principle of conditional cash transfers to poor families, which has had some success globally. And I note that in a Parliamentary Question reply that just came in, 2% of Secondary school students are tied up with absenteeism.
Secondly, commitment to taking action on the employability front with training, job seeking and so on and, here, the FSC and WSG account managers can coordinate.
Thirdly, commitment to healthy behaviour, such as going for health screening and adult vaccination.
Fourthly, commitment to attend personal life skills courses, for example, related to financial literacy.
In fact, some of the increased Financial Assistance can come in the form of digital currency that can only be spent on healthier food. At the Committee of Supply (COS), I shall elaborate on this and on child early intervention programmes to break the poverty cycle.
Sir, my final topic on the administration of poverty relief would be the quantum of relief. More can be given, with part of it being conditional, as I have argued. Long-term ComCare gives individuals about $600 monthly, short- to medium-term ComCare gives a mean of $600 per household per month in FY2020, which works out to just under $270 per person per month. There are other schemes like the Workfare Income Supplement and Silver Support, but these also number in the hundreds of dollars per month. And not every person who is vulnerable accesses multiple schemes.
I am sure other Members of this House have had the same experience as I often have, where persons approach me to plead for Financial Assistance and the case is referred to the SSO. A letter from the SSO sometimes follows, which states that, in their conversation, the residents agreed that they were receiving certain state benefits already and, hence, they have agreed to withdraw their application for Financial Assistance. However, the fact that they initially came to the Member of Parliament underlines that there is a difference of perspective on how much is enough.
In citing this, I want to be absolutely clear that our social workers and SSOs, generally, do their very best and do good work, but they operate within the policy parameters prescribed for them.
Sir, I cited research earlier showing that income levels of $1,400 and $6,400 per month have been suggested to provide a very basic standard of living for a single elder person aged 65 and above and a family of four respectively. For those aged between 55 and 64, that figure increases to $1,700 per month.
Sir, I would suggest that there is scope to revisit and significantly increase the quantum, duration and conditions of welfare assistance we provide to better protect the vulnerable, particularly the children and unemployable elderly. We should address the issue of poverty in a results-oriented fashion and in way that takes into consideration new research when it becomes available.
To be sure, I am not suggesting that welfare assistance should be unlimited and unconditional in all cases, or that the levels should be so high as to make it unattractive to work. But as we apply progressive wage laddering, the quantum that makes work unattractive will rise and this should be reflected in our welfare schemes.
Sir, another suggestion I have is to enable poorer individuals to contribute back to society in a manner that might most befit their abilities by empowering them to become micro-entrepreneurs. A state-backed facility should be set up to provide micro-loans to poorer individuals to set up microbusinesses, such as home-based catering businesses, for example. The financial services industry is, currently, not set up to do this.
Many poor Singaporeans I know are willing to work hard and may have a passion or talent for something that could become a source of stable income, pride and self-esteem. Micro-entrepreneurship, particularly among women, whom research has shown are more likely to share financial gains with their children, unfortunately, is a pathway to poverty alleviation that attracts a great deal of multilateral funding in other countries.
I would like to briefly repeat a call made by my colleague, Member of Parliament Mr Faisal Manap, to reintroduce the hardship scheme for hawker centre stalls. This could provide opportunities for the low-income and ex-offenders to pursue their aspiration to set up a hawker stall with subsidised rents.
Next, Sir, I would like to touch on the social work profession. Social workers are at the core phase of dealing with poverty. Many I have spoken to feel that many of our social workers feel overworked. And this was my sense, too, when I was an FSC volunteer in the 1990s. This is a subject that has been discussed in this House a number of times. We need to invest in more manpower and we need to ensure that compensation is well matched to the rigours of the job, which can be intellectually, socially and emotionally draining.
We can do more to set benchmarks for caseloads and increase headcount when these benchmarks are breached. Social workers will find it hard to help others if they are looking for help themselves. Social workers with sufficient capacity are the best people to provide advice and support on more complex issues and not just disburse money. They could be like venture capitalists, investing in people and also providing them with critical advice and coaching to help realise a return on that investment. In short, social workers can help people thrive.
The last subject I would like to address in my speech is to call for the release of better data to tackle the issues of poverty and social mobility. Better data helps public debate and helps us figure out what works and what does not. And in tackling a problem that is as complex and resistant to simple solutions as poverty is, such data is critical for performance management for the goals we have set. We need to invest in a rigorous measurement of intergenerational social mobility at least once every decade, a call I have made before. And a nationally recognised poverty line should be established, which could aid social workers in making decisions, a call made in this House by my colleague, then Non-Constituency Nominated Member Mr Yee Jenn Jong, in 2013.
We should also keep data on child poverty, which is key to intergenerational poverty and which many other countries do publish. I propose that we track the intergenerational rate of reliance on ComCare Financial Assistance and rental housing. One head of an FSC who had been in the field for over 20 years told me that he was receiving cases of young families that were the children of cases he had handled as a young social worker. This is a poverty cycle we must break.
Thirdly, I would like to call for in-depth studies to be done, directed, especially, at younger poor Singaporeans, to do deep root cause analysis of the reasons for poverty.
Lastly, we should aim to release more data by socioeconomic status, including on health outcomes, educational attainment, new business formation and so on. Any relevant public survey of studies that relate to this should, by default, be published.
Sir, in waging war on poverty, there are many other policy tools we need in our arsenal that I will not have time to expand on and hope the conversation will continue. For example, my colleagues, Members of Parliament Gerald Giam and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, have tirelessly spoken about minimum wages in this House. Member of Parliament Louis Chua moved an Adjournment Motion about expanding the supply of rental housing, while Member of Parliament Faisal Manap did the same on motorcycle COEs. Workers' Party chair Ms Sylvia Lim has spoken passionately on social mobility. In this Budget debate, the Leader of the Opposition, Member of Parliament Ms He Ting Ru and other Workers' Party Members of Parliament have argued for other policies that will help the poor and the vulnerable, including why the Government's 28% GST hike is unhelpful and unnecessary, which is why the Workers' Party cannot support the Budget. A 28% hike refers to the increase in GST rate from 7% to 9% – that is, a 28% increase.
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to wrap up by asking a simple question. Is spending more and investing more effort in fighting poverty and breaking the poverty cycle really worth it? I understand that changing our mindset and paying to tackle poverty costs money. But we have done this before. In Year One of COVID-19, almost 200,000 self-employed people were given $1,000 a month.
There will be returns from investing in a war on poverty and breaking the poverty cycle. If the help is provided in a results-oriented, holistic way, with sufficient dollars, there is every reason to believe that that spending will diminish over time and yield broader social and economic and even sociopolitical benefits, as more people improve themselves in terms of health, life skills, employability and – that most precious commodity of all – self-belief and confidence in themselves.
We must not judge our success solely on how much GDP growth we have achieved each year, but also by how much poverty we have eliminated. In recent years, it is unclear if we are making success on this front, with no real downtrend in demand for ComCare, rental flats and other assistance schemes. We must break this cycle and make a substantial dent on poverty.
Then, and only then, can we truly claim to be living in a First World Country. Only then can we say that we live in a society that has everyone’s back.
Mr Speaker: Mr Vikram Nair.
Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, I support this Budget. I will deal with three matters in my speech: first, the war in Ukraine and its implications for Singapore; second, our response to COVID-19; third, I have some suggestions in relation to public housing.
First, on the war in Ukraine. This war broke out after the Budget Statement, but before this debate. The Russian invasion of Ukraine is the largest conflict on the European continent since World War II. There remain risks that this conflict may escalate further. The eruption of conflict has already created turbulence in financial and commodity markets. It is anticipated that, in the long term, various commodities may rise in prices, adding to inflation.
I support the principled position that Singapore has taken in relation to this dispute. While we are not against any country, we stand firmly against this invasion as a violation of Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty. As at the time of this speech, it remains the case that despite the violation of international law, Ukraine is largely fighting alone against Russia. However, the international community has been swift in taking action, including tough economic sanctions, against Russia.
This raises a number of related issues for us to consider. The first is that defence spending is vital and we must ensure we have the capability and resources to survive in the event war is visited on us. While I expect we will have more details on the defence spending in MINDEF’s Committee of Supply – I have filed several cuts on that – I think we need to remain committed to defence spending and national defence even during times of peace. There will be many demands on our spending in the coming years and it is always tempting to say we should cut defence spending in times of peace. This would clearly be a mistake.
The second is we must continue to maintain and build good and deep relations as well as mutually beneficial economic ties with as many countries as possible. We hope never to go to war, but the stronger and deeper our ties with the world around us, the better our chances of avoiding war and also of getting support from the international community in the event we are drawn into a war. It is always a big ask for others to join our conflict, but they may help in other ways, which will be vital.
Third – and this is more short term – I would also like to ask the Minister for Finance whether he sees any significant economic turmoil from the war in Ukraine on us and whether any additional measures may need to be taken in the Budget to provide for this.
The second topic – and now coming to home more directly – is our response to COVID-19. Singapore has done an excellent job of handling this crisis. We have taken a generally cautious, science- and evidence-led approach that has enabled us to achieve a high vaccination rate amongst the population and kept fatalities at a relatively low rate. The main price we have paid is living with social restrictions, which have taken a toll both on the economy and on the mental health of some of our people.
Over the last few months, with Omicron spreading, COVID-19 has been affecting even many in our highly-vaccinated population. I, myself, came down with COVID-19 in December when I was with my family in the UK.
The UK's approach to COVID-19 was quite different from Singapore's and, while there were some restrictions in place, including requirements to wear masks indoors, many activities had resumed when we were there. These included football matches, dining at restaurants and eateries and watching plays and performances. Of course, this is probably part of the reason I came down with COVID-19, as did my daughter.
However, for both of us, the experience was not particularly bad. Although we had mild symptoms for a few days, we did not test positive until our pre-departure test, where my daughter and I tested positive. Thereafter, we isolated ourselves, in line with the UK's guidelines at the time. However, within about two days, we were testing negative again and our symptoms were relatively mild. In my case, just a slight sore throat and runny nose.
As we spoke to more people, we realised that almost everyone knew someone or had family or friends who had come down with COVID-19 and some had come down with it themselves. For most, it was not debilitating and life could go on.
Of course, this is not to trivialise the COVID-19 experience. My wife and I had three shots of the vaccine and this, probably, helped us in resisting and overcoming the virus. My daughter had the benefit of youth.
However, from what we understand, the immunocompromised and those with pre-existing ailments remain vulnerable to serious complications. Additionally, there are studies in the UK pointing to a group of people who suffer symptoms called \"long COVID\", which means they have different after-effects following a COVID-19 infection, some of which can be serious and debilitating.
My suggestion is that it may be better for us to proceed with plans to ease our restrictions and move closer to life as normal but, at the same time, remind and educate the more vulnerable to take extra precautions. We need to reiterate the message that, for those with COVID-19 who are either asymptomatic or who have mild symptoms, there is no need to visit the doctor or the hospital. If necessary, sceptical employers who are asking for medical certificates can ask employees to send photographs of their current ART test results for human resource (HR) record purposes.
I understand that even with the relatively large number of COVID-19 cases that are emerging every day, our hospitals remain able to cope with those who need urgent assistance. Our population is amongst the best vaccinated in the world. I think we are ready to open up.
The third topic I wish to discuss, quite different from the earlier two, relates to housing.
In my Meet-the-People session (MPS) cases, appeals in relation to housing are one of the common ones that come up. Housing affordability and availability are a concern for many residents.
One of the curious issues that has arisen during the pandemic is that the housing market has heated up, both in the public and private sector. I think this is a combination of both increased demand and tightening supply.
On the demand side, as more people are at home, the more people seek more personal space for themselves and family members. Thus, in large extended families, various members may wish to move out into houses of their own. New couples getting married want their own place as it may be difficult to move in with either of the parents. Appeals for new flats emerge regularly in my MPS.
On the supply side, Build-to-Order (BTO) development has slowed down somewhat because of delays in construction. Additionally, the resale market has been limited by the imposition of minimum occupation periods, or MOPs, for both resale and new flats. I had filed Parliamentary Questions on this previously and MND had indicated in its response that it did not believe removing MOP would increase housing supply and may encourage speculation because people who sell their flats may then look to buy new ones.
I do not agree with this view entirely and I would suggest, perhaps, initially, HDB may wish to consider removing the MOP for resale flats while retaining it for new flats. This was actually the state of affairs for many years before MOP was extended to resale flats as well. Even without MOP, there are other disincentives to flipping flats, including the seller's stamp duty, which is higher if a flat is sold within a shorter holding period.
In my view, one of the biggest drivers for new BTOs is that there is a huge price discrepancy between resale flats and new flats. A new flat is both brand new and has a fresh lease, and it comes at a lower price. So, as a result of this, there is almost no logical reason for anyone to buy a resale flat unless they feel they have no choice.
At the same time, people who buy resale flats also get a feeling they are getting a raw deal and are envious of those who get new flats at a lower price. This exaggerates the \"lottery effect\" of new flats and those who are eligible for it vis-a-vis those who are not or who are lower on the priority list start feeling more resentful.
My humble suggestion would be to take away the MOP for resale flats. This would, at least, create a greater supply of resale flats, which should ease their prices.
I also do not expect this to be a one-off effect because, if a resale flat is bought, it could still be put on the market again if needed, whereas now, if a resale flat is bought, it would be out of the market for at least five years, hence, constraining supply. So, in that sense, every transaction constrains the resale market further.
It would also give resale flat buyers the benefit of flexibility – at least, one tangible benefit for the huge premium they would otherwise be paying.
Currently, the two most common HDB appeals I get are either for new flats or to reduce the MOP because families need to change their living arrangements as a result of changing circumstances.
I think one of the reasons for the high demand for BTOs, in particular, is the disparity in prices between resale flats and BTO flats. And I would suggest that, ideally, the price of a BTO flat with the resale levy should be somewhat comparable to a resale flat so that they become easy options for buyers to choose from. I believe that if more buyers are prepared to go to the resale market to buy their flats and the resale market is accessible, this would reduce the heavy demand we have for BTO flats at the moment.
So, if this disparity falls enough, such that Government grants would make buying resale flats as attractive as new flats even for those who are house hunting, I think this would also further reduce the current pent-up demand for BTOs and the lottery effect people are feeling from this.
Mr Speaker, I have covered three different topics that are important, I believe, in different ways but I, generally, support this Budget.
Mr Speaker: Ms Hany Soh.
Ms Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mr Speaker, it is uplifting to learn that several of the schemes and support packages introduced in this year's Budget will go a long way towards softening the impact of rising costs for Singaporeans, particularly the lower-income group.
However, while the Government provides direct monetary aid to our citizens, I believe that we can go even further by ensuring that all Singaporeans have the knowledge and the tools to become financially self-sustainable.
As the saying goes, \"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.\"
One suggestion is that various Ministries should consider working with the People's Association to organise financial literacy workshops in the community. These workshops would cover essential topics, such as budgeting for necessities, planning for big ticket item purchases and the basics of investing, which can also include sharing of useful tips on scam prevention.
We can also pair these workshops along with estate planning and law awareness talks, which are also an extension of managing household finances. The law awareness talks should involve multiple agencies, including the Office of Public Guardian (OPG), the CPF Board and MinLaw to work hand in hand together with the Law Society of Singapore.
In conjunction with the talks covering estate planning, MinLaw can consider a further waiver of the $50 wills registration fees currently chargeable by the Singapore Academy of Law while encouraging inter-agencies to work closely together to promote the use of Smart Nation's MyLegacy portal for comprehensive estate planning services on matters, such as CPF nominations, advance medical directives, lasting power of attorney and wills.
In terms of investing in our children, another area which I hope we can consider is to defray the costs of preschool and after-school care services, such as exempting the GST for these monthly expenses. This would be a welcome relief for parents, especially single parents and families with special needs children, as this pandemic has caused many of our little ones to miss school for extended periods of time without compensation.
On the same note, I also hope that more support can be provided to families with autistic children. During the course of my thematic e-townhalls which focus on embracing parenthood, as well as my regular house visits, several of my residents with autistic children have shared with me that, notwithstanding the fact that they belonged to the middle-income group, they find themselves financially stretched due to the costs incurred for signing up their children into the early intervention programmes and speech therapy sessions, coupled with the expenses incurred by them every month for enrolling their children in a kindergarten or childcare centre. All of these expenses are subject to GST.
Lastly, we can further reduce our collective upkeep and progress towards our Singapore Green Plan 2030 goal by encouraging Singaporeans to practise not just the 3Rs but the full 5Rs: (a) reduce consumption of resources unless necessary; (b) reduce consumption of resources, such as water, electricity and food; (c) repair reparable items, such as electrical and electronic appliances; (d) reuse used items for different purposes, such as using reusable bags, bottles or food containers; and (e) segregate recyclable items and place them into recycling bins.
These 5Rs will not just enable us, as a community, to work towards our Singapore Green Plan 2030 but will also help fellow Singaporeans to reduce their day-to-day expenses.
To that end, the Government can contribute towards improving the \"software\" and the \"hardware\".
In terms of the \"software\", a few of my suggestions include setting up workshops in the community, sharing useful tips to practise the 5Rs and empowering residents with the knowledge to conserve water and energy as well as to reduce food waste.
One example would be the Singapore Institute of Building Limited (SIBL)'s ongoing SG Eco Fund project in Woodgrove aimed at raising awareness on environmental issues and encouraging more residents to adopt an eco-friendly lifestyle through community and education programmes, sustainable markets and an app with interactive games.
Another suggestion would be in relation to developing new TV programmes to educate our younger generations about the 5Rs in an engaging manner.
Captain Green, an iconic green frog mascot was first introduced in the 1990s to encourage Singaporeans to adopt a clean and green lifestyle. In recent years, Captain Green has ventured into storybooks and quick teach cards used in preschools to inculcate our children with the habit of taking responsibility for their actions and to reflect on their choices towards a clean and green environment.
I believe these teachings can be further enhanced through a collaboration with Mediacorp to introduce a cartoon series involving mascots like Captain Green, Water Wally as well as the recently launched Bloobin, using rhythmic content akin to the popular \"Baby Shark\" song to attract our children and to encourage them to be our young budding green champions.
To tackle the \"hardware\" part of the equation, quite a number of my Woodgrove residents have expressed during our regular Green Living sustainability dialogues that the present design of the blue recycle bins poses many challenges for the community to recycle effectively.
While we note that NEA has been stepping up efforts to educate the public on how to recycle correctly, all we need is one irresponsible user to deposit food waste into the blue recycling bin to cause the rest of the recyclable items in the bin to become fully contaminated and attract rodents unnecessarily.
We should, therefore, not merely provide one bulk container for people to dispose all types of recyclables and waste. There needs to be more innovative solutions to encourage or incentivise single-type recyclables, such as having one specifically or specially for batteries, plastic bottles, paper or cans and so on.
In relation to the energy- and water-saving component, HDB can assist by considering green features in future housing projects and upgrading existing ones through Home Improvement Programme (HIP), such as adopting sustainable materials and designs. Many of our existing HDB flats incorporate full glass windows that emit a considerable amount of heat during the late afternoon. As an example, HDB can consider installing low heat transfer windows, such as double-glazed windows, as a solution.
Finding a suitable greener alternative that helps cool down our HDB flats will translate to less reliance on fans and air-conditioning, indirectly contributing towards reducing residents' utility bill costs each month.
Mr Speaker, allow me to conclude in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In this Budget, the Government has listened to the voices of the people and delayed the increase in GST. It has also introduced several assistance packages, providing reassurance to Singaporeans whose livelihoods have been affected by the pandemic, and easing their financial burden.
Continuing support, such as S&CC rebates, GST vouchers, will continue to help Singaporeans cope with rising cost of living due to inflation.
While these assistance packages are substantial, responses vary from household to household. Take, for example, the $100 CDC vouchers previously given out by the Government to each household. Some residents from low-income families expressed their gratitude to the Government, while others told me that they hoped the Government could have given more.
In the long run, we should not rely too much on Government assistance to sustain our livelihood. Instead, we should carefully plan for our future and build our own financial foundations.
Starting a family, making a career, birth, ageing, sickness and death will definitely impose a heavy burden on us in different stages of our lives. Hence, I hope that the Government will provide professional guidance to Singaporeans in financial planning before they enter these stages.
Like our reserves, if we plan ahead and manage our finances and expenses well, we will be prepared for rainy days. I support this year's Budget.
Mr Speaker: Mr Darryl David.
Mr Darryl David (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, there was anticipation and even some trepidation in the lead-up to Budget 2022. Not only was this Budget set against the backdrop of a COVID-19 year three, it was also set against rising global energy prices, increasing core inflation, the rising cost of living and Europe on the brink of open conflict between Russia and Ukraine, which, by now, has become a grim and sober reality. And added to all these, of course, was the impending increase in GST.
The issue of the GST increase has been debated quite extensively in this House and I understand that Members have opposing views on whether the GST should or should not be increased. I believe it is fair to say that almost all Members, if not all Members of the House, would agree that more can and should be done for the less privileged in society and those with more should contribute more. The fundamental question is, of course, how that more should be funded. Should we continue to draw more from the reserves? Should we significantly raise income tax and corporate tax? Should we base property taxes on property values? Should we tax the wealthy based on the value of their wealth portfolio? Should we use more of the NIRC and, if so, how much more – 60%, 70% and so on?
These might very well be decisions that could be taken by either this Government or governments of the future. But I would like to urge those governments to exercise caution because such decisions have to be part of a holistic, balanced and diversified taxation policy that strikes a careful balance by considering the impact on all the various groups and stakeholders in our society. Let us not use a sledgehammer and swing away wildly when perhaps a discerning use of a chisel might be more appropriate.
As such, I do understand the rationale behind the GST increase and commend the Government for being sensitive in implementing the GST increase in two stages, in 2023 and 2024, so that the immediate impact of the increase is not felt and this will give everyone, both consumers and companies, time to prepare for the hike.
To further soften the blow of the increase and to help Singaporean households cope with the increase in the cost of living, I am also heartened to see that the Government has rolled out many other schemes, such as the enhanced Assurance Package with additional CDC vouchers and cash payout to eligible Singaporeans; enhanced permanent GST Voucher scheme; U-Save rebates; MediSave top-ups; and the addition of S&CC into the GSTV scheme.
With these schemes, the net transference from the Government to lower-income families and those who need it will increase from the current sum and the impact of GST increase on lower-income families will not be felt for many years. I believe that this transference and these schemes are really quite seamless and the effort for many of those who need it is quite minimal to access these schemes and that would significantly thus reduce the impact of any bandwidth tax that was mentioned earlier by our colleague, Mr Leon Perera, in his speech.
As I have mentioned before, it is important to have a holistic taxation strategy and it is commendable that the Government is looking beyond GST as a revenue source and is also exploring other alternative sources of taxation revenue via other forms of progressive taxes, such as the increase in personal income tax for those with an annual income of more than $500,000 and an increase in property tax for non-owner-occupied property and owner-occupied property with an annual value of more than $30,000. The revisions in the rate of these progressive taxes will help to ensure that the overall tax regime in Singapore remains resilient, with those with more means contributing more than those with less. Notice I have said \"those with more\", not \"those with a lot\". So, as long as I have more than you, I should be happy and willing to contribute to you. That is what I think we all should be aiming for.
I would like to shift the focus now to the next topic of my speech, Mr Speaker, please, on healthcare and, specifically, men's mental health and well-being. I am personally glad to hear that there will be an increase in healthcare spending, and a specific area of healthcare that I am especially happy that the Government is focusing on is mental wellness. This has been raised before by other Members in this House.
Mr Speaker, COVID-19 has left an indelible mark on humanity and on our collective psyche. It has changed the way we utilise spaces, interact with one another and how we build social relationships. The stress of having to live with the pandemic, the need to face medical unknowns related to the disease, the increase in contestation for living and working spaces, job and income insecurity, and having to constantly navigate the ever-changing COVID-19 management measures, have left many of us physically exhausted, emotionally spent and mentally drained.
When we think about mental wellness, we have to understand that different groups of people have different mental wellness needs as they can be affected by the same stressors differently. We recognise this, of course, if we look at mental wellness for the youths, mental wellness that affects seniors, postpartum depression when it comes to women who have just given birth and so on. So, rather than to treat mental wellness as a collective term, it will thus be beneficial for us to recognise that, just like these other different segments of society, men are also affected very differently by stresses.
In many societies today, some patriarchal beliefs continue to be commonly held by the majority of the population and there are corresponding societal expectations of how men should behave in social settings. Men are still expected to be the head of the family, the dominant breadwinner, to have the \"eye of the tiger\" by demonstrating strength and confidence and to stare adversity in the face and to \"man-up\", take the fall when things go wrong.
These expectations have, inadvertently, caused men to experience stressors that are different from those from other segments of our society. Ms Porsche Poh is one of the leading mental advocates for mental health, having founded Silver Ribbon way back in 2006. One of the nominees for Singaporean of the Year in 2021, Ms Poh has done a lot to help those with mental illness in my Ang Mo Kio-Hougang constituency and she shares these strong views that more needs to be done for men's mental health.
I had a chat with Ms Poh lately and, according to her, men often tend to equate psychosomatic symptoms, such as racing heart, digestive issues or headaches, as health issues and seek help from physicians without realising that these are common symptoms of depression. More worryingly, when depressed, men are more likely to engage in negative coping techniques, such as alcoholism, which may, ironically, lead to other forms of health problems in the long run.
\"During our sessions,\" says Ms Poh, \"some male clients asked if it is okay for them to cry. We have to promote mental health among men more so that they feel comfortable to speak up about their struggles.\" And I thank Ms Poh for her valuable inputs in my speech.
Mr Speaker, I wholeheartedly agree with Ms Poh and have some suggestions that I hope the Government could consider to better promote mental health among men.
I believe that we should go upstream to educate men about the importance of mental wellness and let them know that there are sources available to them when they need help. Could our Secondary schools or tertiary institutions not develop dedicated resources and platforms to teach male students how to dispel traditionally toxic masculine stereotypes and encourage them to step forward and feel comfortable to speak up about their struggles and seek help?
Could MINDEF consider running programmes educating our NSFs and soldiers about the importance of mental wellness and promote the idea that it is okay to seek help? It is okay to be not okay. To help them move away from the stereotype that you should shed blood and not tears because \"real men don't cry?\" I believe that having such mental wellness programmes and demolishing archaic male stereotypes are not incompatible with training our soldiers to be tough and resilient.
Making our young men better soldiers by making them more aware of their mental wellness also prepares them to be better men for the rest of their lives. I would also hope that the Government can devote some resources to having more community-based platforms that specifically cater to men who are presently struggling with mental wellness. For example, one could start with mental well-being activities in community clubs and centres that cater to men and perhaps this could evolve into dedicated structured support group sessions that men could attend. The ultimate aim of this would be to destigmatise help-seeking behaviour from men as signs of weakness by creating a more gender-neutral society and providing platforms where men, and women, feel comfortable to discuss mental wellness issues.
Mr Speaker, Sir, there are those who have described this as a \"Robin Hood\" Budget; that is, \"take from the rich to give to the poor\". But to use that term is to draw lines of divisions between just \"what or who\" is rich and \"what or who\" is poor and dishes out unhelpful labels that can only be divisive in our society.
The heart of good governance is about creating a strong social compact, and the social compact is constantly evolving as our society progresses. And a key feature of our social compact is reflected in this Budget, which signals that those of us who are blessed to have more should contribute more, and those of us who need more help should get the help that they need. Rather than reducing it to a blunt tool about simply taking from one group and giving to another, I see this Budget more as reinforcing a uniquely Singaporean version of \"noblesse oblige\" where those who are in positions of relative privilege and wealth – and I use the word, \"relative\" again, Mr Speaker – have the social duty and obligation to take care of those who have less.
So, it is not just about implementing a particular fiscal policy; it is about strengthening a societal philosophy. It would be wonderful if this philosophy could permeate into every single Singaporean social consciousness, whereby, regardless of our income levels, we are willing to contribute not just our money, but also our time to those who need our help and assistance. Because that is what a family does, Mr Speaker: those who are stronger, take care of those who are not as strong; those who can, help those who are trying; those who have more, help those who have less. Everyone does their part. And it is only by staying strong as one united Singaporean family that we are going to get through the economic and societal challenges of the years ahead. And with that, I end my speech in firm support of the Budget.
Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 1.40 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 1.15 pm until 1.40 pm.
Sitting resumed at 1.40 pm.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
The Minister for Finance (Mr Lawrence Wong): Mr Speaker, I thank all Members who have spoken and supported the Budget. Many suggestions have been raised and I cannot cover all of them in this round-up speech, but I assure everyone that we have listened to every view and will study your suggestions carefully.
Members have also raised many specific questions related to the programmes of the Ministries and these will be addressed at the Committee of Supply (COS).
Sir, this Budget sets out the roadmap for Singapore to adapt and thrive in a post-pandemic world. We are charting our way forward together – towards a fairer, greener and more inclusive society. From what I have heard during the debate, there is strong support for these key thrusts of the Budget and I thank everyone for the support.
The key issues raised during the debate can be summarised in three broad questions. Are we doing enough to sustain our recovery and position Singapore well for the future? Why do we need more revenues and, in particular, why raise GST and are there alternatives to this? And is the Budget fair to all Singaporeans? I will address these three issues in turn.
Let me start with our overall economic situation. Ensuring a strong and vibrant economy is of critical importance because it raises our standard of living, provides good jobs and opportunities for Singaporeans and generates revenues, so that we have the resources to do more, especially for the more vulnerable groups.
In my Budget speech, I shared our outlook for the year and some of the risks on the horizon, including the tensions in Eastern Europe. Since then, we all know that the situation has escalated sharply, following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
The Minister for Trade and Industry has provided an update of the economic outlook. Singapore’s direct trade linkages with Russia and Ukraine are relatively small. But the conflict will impact the global economy and global energy markets, which will, in turn, affect us.
So, we are taking actions to enhance the resilience of our energy supplies. We are coordinating actions across the whole-of-society as some Members have suggested. For example, extending the Temporary Electricity Contracting Support Scheme (TRECS) to help affected consumers, especially the SMEs. We are getting businesses to offer more value-for-money house brands to consumers so that consumers can stretch their dollars. We are extending Price Kaki to help consumers make better, more informed purchasing decisions. And we are standing up the Committee Against Profiteering to take action against unfair price hikes.
Where inflation risks are concerned, MAS had taken the pre-emptive step to tighten monetary policy in January. The appreciating exchange rate will moderate the impact of higher global inflation. MAS will continue to assess the appropriate steps to ensure medium-term stability.
In this Budget, we introduced the Jobs and Business Support Package to help businesses and workers, as well as the Household Support Package to help households with their daily needs.
Let me be clear: this Budget is expansionary, and our fiscal stance is appropriate. We are staggering the tax moves, with the first step of the GST increase taking effect only next year and with generous offsets for all Singaporean households.
We are monitoring the external situation and the risks for our economy closely. Risks in terms of both growth and inflation. If the situation worsens, we will not hesitate to take further actions to protect jobs and to help households and businesses deal with increased costs.
Notwithstanding these near-term uncertainties in the external environment, our overall prospects are good. We are operating from a position of strength and that is why we can make bold moves now, which will position us well to seize the opportunities ahead.
One decisive step is to accelerate the decarbonisation of our economy and achieve net-zero by or around the mid-century. All of us will have to adjust to the new levels of carbon tax to facilitate this green transition. But moving decisively will bring many benefits and open up new opportunities.
For example, after the Budget, Members may have read that EDP Renewables, a global leader in the renewable energy space, announced plans to invest up to $10 billion through a local firm Sunseap to establish a clean energy hub in Singapore for the Asia Pacific region.
As we attract more of such green investments, we will also step up training efforts to equip Singaporeans with the right skills to take on these new green jobs. As several Members, including Ms Poh Li San, Prof Koh Lian Pin and Ms Hany Soh highlighted, this will take a whole-of-society effort to achieve our climate ambition. We will, certainly, move forward in that direction.
At the same time, we will continue our R&D efforts in emerging technologies, such as carbon capture and hydrogen, as suggested by Dr Tan Wu Meng.
All of these moves will enhance and strengthen Singapore's position as a choice destination for new investments in the green economy and, ultimately, create many more good jobs for Singaporeans.
Several Members, I think Mr Seah Kian Peng and Ms Denise Phua, worry that we are making too many changes at the same time – foreign worker adjustments, progressive wages, CPF, carbon tax and so on – and that all these will add to cost pressures for businesses at a time when demand is still weak for certain segments of the economy.
I understand these concerns. That is why we are continuing to provide significant support to the harder-hit sectors, including through the Small Business Recovery Grant.
We are also phasing in the new requirements. For example, the carbon tax increase will be staggered over three phases from 2024 to 2030. The changes to the S Pass minimum qualifying salary will be implemented over three steps from this year to 2025.
What we are doing is to be upfront, clear and transparent to businesses. We are announcing these moves well ahead of time so that businesses can plan ahead and make the necessary adjustments.
Even as we make these policy moves over the coming years, we continue to pay very close attention to our SMEs, something which many Members spoke about.
We will continue to help our SMEs upgrade and maintain a vibrant SME sector in Singapore. This includes our heartland enterprises, as mentioned by Mr Melvin Yong. In fact, our support and grant schemes for companies are designed to benefit SMEs the most.
Prior to COVID-19, smaller firms were receiving about 12 times more grants from the Government on a grant per dollar of revenue basis, compared to larger firms. Twelve times more grants from the Government on a grant per dollar of revenue basis.
And throughout the past two years, SMEs continued to receive significant help through schemes like the Jobs Support Scheme, rental relief and financing schemes.
In this Budget, 80% of the payouts from the new and enhanced schemes will flow to SMEs.
Of course, not every SME will get the same support. That is because our strategy favours SMEs which are actively training their workers and increasing their productivity. If the SME is prepared to make the effort, it will enjoy very generous co-funding.
Under the Productivity Solutions Grant (PSG), firms that undertake productivity solutions this year will receive significant funding support. For a $10,000 productivity project, the Government will pay up to $7,000. With the SkillsFuture Enterprise Credit (SFEC), eligible firms can get additional funding for up to 90% of out-of-pocket expenses for their supported programmes.
You can stack both schemes together. If you do so, SMEs only need to pay as little as $300 for a $10,000 productivity project.
Mr Derrick Goh, Mr Edward Chia and several Members who have spoken passionately about SMEs will be heartened to know that we will intensify our outreach efforts to the SMEs to let them know about the support schemes and how to take advantage of them. We will proactively reach out to our SMEs through our Trade Associations and Chambers (TACs) and Enterprise Singapore. At the same time, we are making it easier for SMEs to access information on schemes and available support through the GoBusiness portal and SME Centres.
I recognise that the operating environment in Singapore can be challenging for businesses. We are no longer competing based on being a low-cost business location. Where we can, the Government will manage the pace of cost increases and make it easier to do business.
For example, through GoBusiness Licensing, we have streamlined the number of regulatory touchpoints for food business owners from 14 to one. This reduces the number of licence applications that firms have to fill up and saves up to 14 days of turnaround time.
Ms Janet Ang and Mr Edward Chia shared concerns from the business community on the availability of manpower. That is a key concern for many businesses and I fully understand.
The current shortage of Work Permit holders is partly due to our border restrictions. As we progressively open our borders, we are giving priority to bringing back workers that businesses urgently need, especially workers for the construction, marine and process sectors. We should be able to clear the shortages within the next few months.
At the same time, firms should continue to take full advantage of the various schemes that support job redesign and improve productivity to become more manpower-efficient.
In the near term, the Government will also help to offset some of the cost increases. For example, we have the Progressive Wage Credit Scheme to help co-fund wage increases for low-wage workers.
But we cannot offset wage and cost increases perpetually as that will not be viable nor desirable. Keeping the cost of employing foreigners low would also mean depressing the wages of local workers over time.
Our focus, therefore, is not to hold down labour costs indefinitely but to support efforts by our firms to be more productive and innovative so that they can be competitive and successful even as labour costs gradually increase. That is why we are redoubling our efforts to invest in new capabilities.
Mr Seah Kian Peng asked about support for our TACs. We are already doing this through the Local Enterprise and Association Development (LEAD) Programme, which provides funding support for TACs to drive capability development and internationalisation projects.
At the same time, as Mr Shawn Huang noted, we are continuing to invest heavily in R&D and technology to strengthen the overall competitiveness of our economy. Ms Sylvia Lim asked why we appear to be lagging behind in some of these knowledge and technology outcomes. In fact, we have been doing better over the years. These investments have a long gestation period. They take time to bear fruit but we are seeing positive results. I am confident we will continue to see more positive results in the years ahead.
As I shared in my Budget speech, one area of focus is to strengthen the linkage between research institutes and industry so that companies can readily access frontier technology and high-quality research.
We are also paying closer attention to the more promising SMEs to help them scale up faster and expand overseas.
Take the example of Cheng Yew Heng, a food manufacturer and food ingredients supplier.
It started out as a small family business in 1947, producing candies and preserved fruits. It is now run by the third generation and has embarked on a journey of production innovation, automation and has expanded into overseas markets. Today, it is a leading sugar manufacturer and ingredients supplier and operates its own e-commerce platform. It even launched a food accelerator recently to help startups commercialise food technology, scale up and access new markets.
We now have about 800 local enterprises with annual revenues above $100 million. They include many household names like BreadTalk, Koufu and SK Jewellery.
Through the new Singapore Global Enterprises initiative, we will provide customised support to help promising businesses scale up and better access the three areas of capital, talent and networks that Ms Janet Ang had mentioned so eloquently in her speech.
With all of these efforts, we look forward to celebrating many more homegrown success stories in the years to come.
Another critical aspect of competitiveness is to stay open and connected to the world, something which many Members like Senior Minister of State Chee Hong Tat, Mr Cheng Hsing Yao and Mr Patrick Tay have emphasised.
This is not just an option. This is essential, even existential, for us. We must never let anti-foreigner sentiments take root here or give the impression that we are becoming more inward-looking.
I caution some in the House who have been shrill on this subject. Take a look at some of the articles that have appeared in the international media recently, wondering if Singapore is closing itself and Singaporeans are becoming less welcoming of foreigners. If global investors conclude that this is so, Singapore will become less attractive to them and it will be ordinary Singaporeans who suffer the most. My colleague, Dr Tan See Leng, the Minister for Manpower, had also sounded a similar warning yesterday.
In this Budget, we are adjusting some aspects of our foreign worker policies. This is not a sudden change in policy. We made our intentions very clear in the Economic Strategies Committee report in 2010.
Since then, we have been making careful, calibrated adjustments to our foreign worker policies. We recognise that tightening too quickly will hurt our SMEs, but moving too slowly will lessen the incentive for firms to upgrade. So, it is really about maintaining that careful balance.
The latest moves we have made in this Budget will help to ensure that the workers coming in are of the right calibre and in areas where we need them and further strengthen the complementarity of our local and foreign workforce.
But I want to be very clear about one thing: we are not closing ourselves to the inflow of foreign workers and professionals. They are, and will remain, integral to our economy and our competitiveness. They are a valuable complement to our Singaporean Core at all levels of the workforce.
We continue to welcome all who contribute to us having the strongest teams here, to give Singaporeans, ourselves, the best chance of success amidst intense global competition. And we welcome those with the capabilities and the commitment, who share our values and our way of life, to stay on and help us build the next phase of our Singapore story.
I also recognise that certain segments of the economy may need more help. And Members have provided many useful suggestions in this debate. For example, Mr Don Wee and Ms Yeo Wan Ling spoke about self-employed persons (SEPs) who are vulnerable and in need of support.
The Government has rolled out several schemes to support self-employed persons through this difficult period. We have also set up the Advisory Committee on Platform Workers, which comprises multiple stakeholders, including our tripartite representatives. The Committee is deliberating on ways to further strengthen protections for these gig workers and will give an update when they are ready.
More generally, we will continue to review our social safety nets to ensure that they meet the needs of our workers in a rapidly changing economy and labour market.
As I mentioned in the Budget, this is a multi-year agenda. This Budget is just one step among many that we have taken before and will take in the future to renew and strengthen our social compact for a post-pandemic world.
In this regard, I am heartened by the various suggestions of Members in this House. Many have offered good ideas. They include Mr Cheng Hsing Yao, Mr Henry Kwek, Mr Patrick Tay, Ms Denise Phua, Mr Louis Ng and, just now, Mr Leon Pereira, around social workers and our social safety support schemes, all suggesting for us to do more and to do better for Singaporeans.
This is, indeed, what drives every Budget. We will continue to study these suggestions carefully and review all of our schemes. But to do more, we will also need to ensure that we have sufficient revenue. That is what I will move on to very shortly.
Sir, on raising revenue, I believe there is broad agreement in this House that additional revenues are needed for the Government to do more. Some have suggested that before we raise revenues, we should put in more effort to slow down expenditure growth. I agree with that. Government spending is about 18% of GDP today. We already run an extremely tight and lean ship, compared to other developed economies, and yet, we have been able to achieve consistently good outcomes.
Ms Hazel Poa asked about the effect of the planned 1% budget cuts – let me clarify that the savings from these budget cuts are reallocated towards new priorities, because the Government is always seeking to embark on new initiatives for the benefit of Singaporeans. So, by making these cuts and reallocating to new initiatives, we are able to moderate the increase in our spending.
I am glad that several Members, like Mr Yip Hon Weng, recognise that Government spending and revenue are two sides of the same coin. But in every Parliamentary session, I must say that I hear many requests for the Government to do more and much fewer requests for the Government to do less. Because we are raising revenues now, I think Mr Leong Mun Wai and Ms Hazel Poa say we should cut back spending further, but they have conveniently neglected to mention that they and the PSP have made requests on multiple other occasions for the Government to spend more, for example, funding of insurance premiums for MediShield Life and CareShield Life; hiring more teachers, reducing class sizes, all of which cost a lot of money.
So, you cannot have it both ways. If we want the Government to do more, then let us be upfront and explain to Singaporeans why additional revenues and tax increases are needed. In many countries, the tendency is for politicians to focus only on the spending side, because it is inconvenient to talk about taxes. As a result, these governments spend beyond their means. They run up unfunded obligations and debt, and they kick the fiscal can down the road.
We are not immune to such pressures. Some of the increase in Government spending is necessary and unavoidable. For example, healthcare spending will be the main driver of the increase in social spending. And the key reason why healthcare spending will rise is our rapidly ageing population, as everyone in this House understands. We are living longer.
Take the number of people who are aged 90 and above. In 2010, we had about 10,000, aged 90 and above. Now, they have more than doubled to 22,000. Or take the number of centenarians, aged 100 and above. In 2010, we had 700; now, around 1,500. By 2030, the numbers will increase much more.
Our seniors will require more medical services – they are more likely to be hospitalised and their length of stay in hospital tends to be longer, compared to younger folks. They also need elective procedures like cataract operations that help them lead more fulfilling lives. But these, too, require more healthcare spending.
So, just the demographic effect of having more seniors alone will already push up healthcare spending significantly. Further increases will happen as better and more costly treatments become available and with the medical inflation that is inevitable, even with the best organised healthcare system.
Another reason for more spending is that our social needs are getting more complex, something which several Members have recognised and highlighted, including Senior Minister of State Heng Chee How, Mr Desmond Choo, Dr Wan Rizal and Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin. These issues are not so easy to resolve through standardised schemes alone.
Often, we will need to customise approaches to suit the circumstances and needs of individuals and families facing complex and multiple challenges. We also need strong coordination, which our agencies are continuing to do, not just across public sector agencies, but with social service agencies on the ground, to take a family-centred approach. And to do this well, we need trained counsellors and social workers to befriend, mentor and journey along, handhold the individuals and families and journey along with them, like what we are doing with ComLink and KidSTART.
This is important work, it likely to produce better outcomes, but it is also highly resource-intensive and will, invariably, cost more.
Over the last decade, Government expenditures rose from 15% to 18% of GDP. This was mainly due to higher spending on healthcare, public transport and significant enhancements to Workfare and the introduction of Silver Support, to name a few. All meritorious programmes, but all requiring significant funding.
Now, if we are able to keep Government expenditures at 20% of GDP in 2030 – so, from 15% to 18% over the last decade, but in 2030, if we can keep it to 20% of GDP – that would already mean a slowing of the rate of increase, compared to a decade ago. I think that would be a good achievement.
The Government will do its part by using its fiscal resources prudently and judiciously and ensuring value-for-money in public spending. We will continue to streamline coordination across the whole-of-Government to reap synergies, as Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim suggested. But there is only so much the Government can do on its own. We also require cooperation from all parties, as Miss Cheryl Chan rightly said – to moderate our own expectations for the Government to keep doing more and to consider how community groups and individuals can also come together to contribute solutions.
And I am glad that there are, indeed, many ground-up initiatives taking off, like the #EastCoastBeachPlan started by Ms Samantha Thian. She started cleaning the beach herself when she noticed large amounts of trash piling up there. Then, she started a Telegram group for like-minded individuals to join and undertake clean-ups together. Now the group has grown to 3,300 members and they have conducted more than 400 beach clean-ups.
There are many more ground-up projects all over Singapore. They self-organise to tackle issues and solve problems, sometimes even before the Government gets a chance to respond. We will continue to support and encourage such initiatives and find new ways to partner them and work in collaboration together. This will reinforce the spirit of mutual support in our community and will go a long way in strengthening our social compact.
Both the WP and PSP have suggested spending more from reserves to meet our rising expenditure. It is tempting to turn to our reserves each time we need more funds. But is this the right thing to do?
The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Pritam Singh, has highlighted that the reserves' rules were amended in the past, so, we can easily amend them again now, for example, to adjust the percentage we use from the NIRC. Sir, we have enshrined the fiscal rules in our Constitution to instil discipline in the Government – to spend within our means and maintain a fair and equitable balance between taking care of our needs today and saving for the future needs of today's generation as well as for generations to come.
As we have explained before, we last amended the Net Investment Returns (NIR) framework in 2015. That was to include Temasek into the framework and this was done after a robust and thorough debate in this House. We should not, at the first sign of need, push for changes in the rules, just to take the easy way out and to avoid having to raise taxes to meet our growing recurring expenditure needs. That would not be the responsible thing to do.
Some argue that they have insufficient information about the reserves or about our fiscal projections to make an informed decision about our fiscal options. In fact, there is already a lot of information published, on the reserves, for example. What we do not disclose is the size of funds managed by GIC, so as not to reveal the full size of our financial reserves.
It is not in our national interest to do so. Our reserves are our strategic defence against threats. If we disclose this information, we will be making it easier for potential adversaries to use it against us. Why would we want to do that?
Where fiscal projections are concerned, the Government will continue to put out as much information as possible. We have released data on our key expenditure drivers, I have mentioned several times our demographic projections and explained why our healthcare and social spending will increase in the coming years as a percentage of GDP and included the expenditure growth figures.
On taxes, we expect them to keep pace broadly with GDP, so, there is clearly a structural funding gap as our spending needs rise. We have shared extensively about our needs and plans and will continue to put out more information, where necessary. But I cannot help but feel that the persistent requests for more information are red herrings – they are distractions from the key problem at hand.
At some point, we need to make decisions, including difficult and critical ones, like what we have done in this Budget, to better prepare Singapore for the future. So, the question is whether all Members are prepared to come back to the real issue – on the need to strengthen our revenues through our various tax measures, to meet the structural growth in our expenditure in the coming years.
Unfortunately, both the WP and PSP paint a false, distorted and misleading picture about our reserves, that these are being accumulated at the expense of the current generation. That is not so. They have assumed that the present rules result in an accumulation of more reserves than is necessary, but that is not the case. Our reserves are growing, but the size of our economy, the challenges we face and the complexity of needs are growing even faster.
I have already explained that the NIRC has provided about 3.5% of GDP to the annual Budget, on average, in the last five years. And that going forward, we expect this NIRC stream to continue to keep pace with economic growth. Even to achieve that is, by no means, a sure thing. We would have done very well if we can do so, given that our investment returns are subject to significant headwinds in the global investment environment, for example, due to ageing populations in the developed countries, lacklustre productivity growth, rising government debt levels and geopolitical tensions.
Both the WP and PSP have also suggested different ways to spend from our land sale proceeds. These are variations of what they have put out before and they still do not recognise that land is a scarce asset that is protected as Past Reserves. We have said it before and we will say it again, when we sell land, we are not creating new wealth. We are merely converting the land from a physical to a financial asset.
Therefore, we invest the land sale proceeds back with the rest of the reserves and we spend 50% of the expected long-term real return through the NIR framework. In this way, our land sale proceeds provide a stable and sustainable stream of income for our Budget over time.
So, to be clear, that means we are already spending from our land sale proceeds. We are doing so. But our approach avoids the pitfalls that we will face if we were to spend on land sale proceeds more directly. What are some of these pitfalls?
First, land prices will move in cycles and can be volatile. We know that, for a fact, there are property market cycles. It will not be a static \"$100\", as Ms Hazel Poa has assumed in her proposal. And we do not want Government revenues to fluctuate with the market because it makes Government spending itself procyclical and creates too much uncertainty for the Government to plan long term.
Second, once a government gets used to relying on land sales to fund spending, it will have a vested interest to keep land prices high to maximise revenues. This will, ultimately, hurt the economy and will hurt Singaporeans. Why would we want to do that? So, the more prudent approach is to treat our land as a finite asset, as what we have done today. We sell the land that we need for urban development and invest the proceeds, as we are doing, to generate a steady income over time. This is a sound approach and it has served us well.
Members need to understand that the risks for our reserves are tilted on the downside. We have already drawn about $37 billion in Past Reserves over the past two years and are continuing to draw on them this year to keep up our public health defences.
Dr Lim Wee Kiak and Ms Tin Pei Ling asked about returning the sums drawn from our reserves. While we are in a better position now, but we are not out of the woods yet. And, I would say, we will not be able to put back what we have drawn down from the Past Reserves anytime soon.
Ms Foo Mee Har also asked whether we would be able to get back to a balanced Budget position. We are, certainly, committed to doing so, as we exit the crisis. This is the basis of our planning. But if there continues to be an extraordinary need, we will have to go through the due process of seeking the President's agreement to a Budget that results in a draw on Past Reserves. This is an appropriate move for managing shocks, as Prof Hoon Hian Teck has noted, and that is how our framework is designed.
Ms He Ting Ru suggested that by saving for the future, we are discounting the needs of the current generation. This is not so. Our fiscal policy, including our Reserves Protection Framework, keeps faith with all generations – current and future. We have drawn on Past Reserves to protect the lives and livelihoods of the current generation, throughout crises. We are also tapping on the NIRC to fund many programmes for the current generation, from the young to the old and, especially for the Merdeka and Pioneer Generations.
At the same time, we need to consider the needs of the future generation. Do we really want to leave our next generation with fewer resources in a more uncertain and volatile world?
To illustrate, if we were to have just 20% less NIRC than today's levels – which could easily have happened if our predecessors had focused on their own spending and did not think it necessary to have a carefully designed Reserves Protection Framework – our GST would now need to increase to 11% instead of 9%, to make up for the funding gap. So, drawing more NIRC now means that our children and the next generation will end up paying more taxes.
Furthermore, no one can tell what the world will be like in 30 years' time. But it is very likely to be a more dangerous world. Our children and the generations after them will have more, not fewer, emergencies to contend with.
The recent conflict in Ukraine reminds us that we are living in an increasingly divided and troubled world. We will encounter more episodes, where size matters, where might is assumed to be right even though that is not a stand we can accept, and where international rules are blatantly ignored by major powers. Let us be very clear. This is a world that will be less hospitable for small countries, let alone a small city-state like Singapore. We will always be at the mercy of these external forces and we must ensure we have sufficient resources to defend and protect ourselves.
And in the years to come, we will need to deal with many other major and pressing challenges, including global warming and rising sea levels, as well as future public health emergencies, which public health experts are predicting will happen with increasing frequency.
We are all thankful that our forefathers did not take the easy way out. Instead, they were disciplined, they considered our needs and chose to keep faith with future generations, meaning us today. So, we benefit from the reserves that they have built up painstakingly. They cared for their future generations, which is us. So, what about us now? What should our attitude be? I say we continue to husband our reserves, keep faith with the generations after us and ensure that they, too, will always have access to this \"rainy days\" fund to meet any emergencies and, importantly, a steady stream of income for their future needs.
My biggest concern with these requests to use more of the reserves is that it reflects a certain cavalier mindset, one of spending whatever we can today and not caring sufficiently about tomorrow. And we see this happening throughout history and around the world. As countries become more affluent, they feel they have arrived and they get tempted by easy money. It begins with something small – allow standards to slide a little; just tweak the parameters a little. What harm does it do? But, over time, these small things add up. Then, it becomes politically very challenging to roll back any benefit and to raise taxes, or even to talk about it, and the country ends up quickly in a downward fiscal spiral.
Sir, despite our small size, we can face the challenges ahead of us with confidence, in large part, because of our fiscal strength. Very few countries are in the same position as us. In fact, intergenerational equity is better preserved in our system than in other places.
But we must never take what we have for granted, for it can unravel very quickly. So, I strongly appeal to all Members in this House, let us all do our part to uphold the ethos of fiscal responsibility, discipline and stewardship that is so vital to our success.
Next, let me turn to other revenue options. Several Members touched on this. They asked if we could do more on other revenue options, especially income and wealth taxes. And, in particular, the Workers' Party offered a range of revenue options as alternatives to the GST increase.
The short answer is we cannot just ignore consumption taxes and put the entire burden on income and wealth taxes. We need a good mix of all three types of taxes: income-based, asset-based and consumption-based. This is how we ensure that our revenue base remains diversified and resilient, while achieving its objectives of being fair and progressive.
In fact, all jurisdictions rely on these three forms of taxation and the OECD jurisdictions have much higher VAT rates or, our GST, than Singapore. Much higher, all in double digits. But let me go through the revenue options one by one.
Let me touch first on corporate income taxes, or CIT. As I Have said in the Budget speech, it is hard to be definitive at this juncture about the overall tax revenue impact from both Pillars 1 and 2 of BEPS 2.0. International discussions are still ongoing on the reallocation formula for Pillar 1.
But before we have reached an agreement, Mr Louis Chua has already concluded that the impact of Pillar 1 will be limited, because it only covers 100 multinational enterprise groups, or MNE groups.
I think that is premature. I must clarify that although the number of in-scope MNEs affected is small, these are the largest and most profitable MNEs. Any reallocation of profits away from Singapore will have a significant impact.
Mr Louis Chua then projected that the CIT revenue could be as high as $71.5 billion. Mr Louis Chua should have paused at this huge number for a reality check. He says it is \"purely hypothetical\". But he should have said it is wishful thinking.
Seventy-one-and-a-half billion dollars, that is the total amount of revenue we collect from all taxes. Does Mr Chua really believe that CIT revenue from the profitable non-SMEs, the larger companies, will jump by seven times, from $10 billion to $70 billion? Really?
Will the implementation of the Minimum Effective Tax Rate, or METR, bring us more tax revenue? Yes, the short answer is yes. Mathematically, it has to be so, if nothing else changes. In other words, if we have the same volume of investments and business activities in Singapore, even as taxes go up with the METR, yes, we will collect. But that is a very big \"if\". It is hard to estimate with any confidence whether or how much more net tax revenue we can collect from both Pillars 1 and 2.
The eventual impact cannot be ascertained by a simple static analysis, as it also depends on how governments and companies will respond, post-BEPS 2.0.
BEPS 2.0 represents a fundamental change in the competitive environment for Singapore. Hitherto, smaller economies like us could rely on tax incentives, not just non-tax factors, to make up for our inherent disadvantages, like limited land and labour force. But this is no longer as effective, post-BEPS 2.0. Companies will review their existing and new investments. Governments will also seek to compete via non-tax investment promotion in order to recover from the pandemic and to make up for what they can no longer do through tax incentives. Our engagement with investors is already revealing this.
So, likewise, Singapore will need to find other ways to stay competitive, from investing even more in our workers to building new infrastructure and incentivising R&D. All these will mean more Government spending. So, even if we can generate additional revenue from Pillars 1 and 2, these will have to be reinvested towards ensuring Singapore remains competitive and attracts our fair share of investments to create good jobs for our people.
I would, therefore, caution against jumping to conclusions or believing wild guesses on how much more revenue we can get from changes in global tax rules and use that as a reason to avoid raising the GST.
Next, personal income tax or PIT. Currently, the top 10% of taxpayers who pay PIT already account for about 80% of our total PIT revenue. With the top marginal personal income tax rate at 24%, we will be higher than the 17% top tax rate of Hong Kong and closer to the Asian average top marginal personal income tax rate of 28%.
There is a limit to how much we can increase PIT rates for the top income brackets, without touching the PIT rates for the income brackets below it.
If we were to keep the GST at 7% and raise the same amount of revenue through PIT, the top marginal rate would have to go up from 22% to 42%. And that would apply to everyone with chargeable income of at least $320,000 or more. And that is assuming the tax base remains unchanged.
But we all know this sharp increase is untenable and will badly damage our competitiveness. Investments and jobs for everyone, including lower- and middle-income earners, will be impacted, not just taxes.
So, to raise the same amount as a GST increase through higher PIT, in reality, we would have to raise the PIT rates for a broader group of income earners, including the middle- and upper-middle income earners. And that was what Dr Tan See Leng was trying to explain yesterday.
In fact, Prof Hoon Hian Teck had correctly observed that as our economy matures and population ages, a bigger share of the population will become economically inactive. This will, in turn, shrink the tax base for income-based taxation. So, we cannot rely only on income-based taxes alone, if we want to maintain a resilient and future-proof revenue base.
So, I have covered corporate and personal income taxes. Next, wealth taxes.
Mr Louis Chua also said we should do more on this front, especially on property taxes. On the other hand, several Members, like Mr Chong Kee Hiong, raised concerns that increased property taxes will impact many retirees and senior owners of private residential properties. So, again, we have to find the balance.
In fact, the changes we have made to property taxes this time around, are not insignificant at all. But we have structured it in a highly progressive manner. Together, our property tax moves raise $380 million more per year from a base of only 7% of all owner-occupied residential properties and all non-owner-occupied residential properties.
For the owner-occupied residential properties, the increased tax rates affect only those with Annual Value (AV) above $30,000. That means that all owner-occupied HDB flats are not affected. Two-thirds of private residential properties, like condominiums in the suburban areas and lower-value landed properties, are also not affected. The remaining one-third of private residential properties which are affected are higher-end condominiums, as well as most landed properties.
And then, all non-owner-occupied residential properties will also face higher property taxes. The tax rates for these are higher because these properties include second homes and those held for investment. And the increases are also more significant for the higher-end non-owner-occupied residential properties.
If we want to raise enough tax revenue from property tax to eliminate the need for a GST rate increase, what would we have to do? Well, we would have to tax all non-owner-occupied residential properties at a significantly higher rate. Let us, say, we taxed all non-owner-occupied residential properties at a flat 36%. This would still not be enough, because the number of non-owner-occupied residential properties is considerably less than that of owner-occupied residential properties. So, we would need to raise property tax rates significantly for owner-occupied residential properties, including for HDB flats.
In fact, I am somewhat surprised that Mr Louis Chua characterised our moves on property tax rates as tokenism. Three hundred and eighty million dollars more per year; and he says it is tokenism.
Currently, our total property tax revenue from all residential properties is about $1 billion. To raise another $1 billion from just property tax alone, property tax rates may very well need to be doubled across the board. I suppose that is what the Workers' Party is proposing.
There were other suggestions for wealth-related taxes. For example, Mr Saktiandi Supaat suggested estate duty. We did away with this in 2008 because it did not achieve the social equity outcomes we had hoped for. In the end, middle- and upper-middle-income individuals were disproportionately affected by estate duties, compared to the wealthy, who were able to find ways to avoid through tax planning. Besides us, the jurisdictions that have repealed their estate duties, like Hong Kong, Malaysia and New Zealand, have not reinstated it either. There were also suggestions to tax capital gains or dividend income. But remember, jurisdictions in the region do not tax capital gains or dividends. And if we were to do so, that can very easily hurt our competitiveness. It will impact jobs and Singaporeans.
Assoc Prof Jamus Lim and Mr Louis Chua suggested we introduce a net wealth tax; and they estimated that it could yield about $1.2 billion annually. As much as we would like to tax the net wealth of individuals in theory, I have explained, it is very challenging to do this in practice. What happened with estate duties could very well happen here. Many forms of wealth are mobile. And as long as there are differences in wealth taxes across jurisdictions, wealth can and will move. That is why many jurisdictions have already abolished their net wealth taxes. In fact, only three OECD jurisdictions now have a net wealth tax.
We will continue to study the experiences of other jurisdictions and explore other options to tax wealth effectively. We also welcome feedback on how to make a suggested net wealth tax work in practice in our context, when almost all our competitors in this region and worldwide do not levy such a tax.
Then, what about the so-called “externalities taxes”, such as sin taxes and carbon tax, as suggested by Assoc Prof Jamus Lim?
I am surprised that he raised this, in the first place, as a means of generating revenue. Tobacco taxes, for example, are a regressive tax – the lower-income groups pay a bigger share of it. The Workers' Party had expressed such strong concerns about the regressivity of the GST, but does not appear to be the least concerned about regressivity here. Why the double standards? In any case, we do not levy sin taxes for purposes of generating revenue, but for deterring consumption, and we will review and adjust these taxes from time to time. For carbon tax, as I have already highlighted, we will channel the revenue to help with the green transition. So, this will not help to meet our structural funding gap.
I have explained how we cannot rely on reserves or these different revenue options to close the funding gap. But let me now address the key issues pertaining to GST.
First, the timing of the GST increase. I had considered this matter very carefully, before deciding to start on 1 January 2023, to delay the start and to stagger the increase over two steps.
Some ask: what happens if inflation turns out to be more persistent or higher? Would it not be better to wait until we are sure that inflation has come down before raising GST?
As I have mentioned before, I fully understand the concerns about inflation and cost of living, but we cannot keep delaying the GST increase, given our pressing revenue needs. If inflation turns out to be persistent and higher than expected, we will deal with this separately through other tools, like I mentioned at the start of my speech.
Besides managing inflation, we also share the concerns raised by Mr Chong Kee Hiong and Mr Saktiandi Supaat, which is that we want to see local wages rising faster than prices.
In fact, we have done well on this front in the last 10 years. Median Singaporean wages, in real terms, have risen by about 3% per year, faster than many other developed jurisdictions, such as the US, the UK, Japan and Hong Kong. We will continue to work hard to ensure such real wage increases are sustained in the coming years across all segments of our workforce.
Meanwhile, we are helping Singaporeans with the Household Support Package this year and we are cushioning the impact of the GST through the enhanced Assurance Package and the permanent GST Voucher scheme.
The Household Support Package will provide a household with two children up to $785 of assistance this year. The enhanced Assurance Package and GST Voucher will be rolled out together, starting from this year, even before the GST rate goes up. Combining the two, households will receive a very significant package of benefits.
Let me illustrate this with an example. But before I proceed, I should say that I have noted Ms Sylvia Lim's suggestions on our household archetypes. We do, in fact, take into account different household formations in studying the effects of our policies and we adjust our policies where necessary. And I am conscious, personally, that there are other kinds of household formations besides the traditional, and we will bear Ms Sylvia Lim's points in mind in our future illustrations.
But for now, take the example of a family with two young children, earning about $2,500 a month and living in a 3-room flat. Over the next five years, they will receive, on average, around $1,000 per year from the enhanced Assurance Package and around $1,400 per year from the enhanced GST Voucher – altogether, $2,400 per year of benefits over the next five years. This is more than their annual total GST expenses – not the increase – more than their total annual GST expenses of around $2,000 per year over this same period. In fact, over the next five years, most low-income families will receive more benefits than what they will pay in GST.
Middle-income families have not been left out and will also enjoy significant benefits from the Assurance Package and the GST Voucher. We know that some are caring for both elderly and young dependents. That is why we have designed our measures to help them.
Again, take the example of a household of five persons living in a 5-room flat, but, this time, with two young children and a retired grandparent, and they have a combined monthly income of $9,000. Over the next five years, they will receive, on average, around $1,300 per year from the enhanced Assurance Package and around $1,100 per year from the enhanced GST Voucher scheme. Again, altogether, $2,400 per year of benefits over the five-year period. Not a small sum at all, and this is for a three-generation household with a combined income of $9,000 a month.
Ms Jessica Tan, Mr Chong Kee Hiong, Dr Shahira Abdullah and Mr Dennis Tan have commented on the criteria we use for our GST Voucher scheme. We have used Assessable Income combined with Annual Value as a measure of an individual’s means and access to family support. They are not perfect, but I think they are quite reasonable. We will continue to review and see if there are better criteria for our schemes. Meanwhile, where there are challenging or unique circumstances, we will carefully consider the appeals.
Ms He Ting Ru asked if we can make the GST less regressive, such as through a multi-tiered GST system for different items, or if we can exempt certain essential items from GST.
From the outset, the Government has always cushioned the impact of the GST on the less well-off Singaporean families. This is how we have been implementing the GST since 1994, with offset packages and, eventually, the permanent GST Voucher scheme. The question is: what is the fairest and most effective way to achieve this objective?
Exempting or lowering the GST on a basket of essential goods sounds like a good idea. But there are two problems with this.
The first is that a multi-rated GST system leads, in practice, to highly arbitrary distinctions between products and lots of creative effort by businesses to get their products classified into the lower tiers. It is administratively costly and onerous to implement. Ms He Ting Ru said that these costs can be easily overcomed. But that has not been the experience of other jurisdictions. If we were to go down this path, it will significantly and unnecessarily complicate the GST system. That is the first reason.
But the second and bigger problem with this suggestion is that, in fact, it does not effectively target support to those with greater needs. So, aside from the administration of it, it is not effective. In fact, such an exemption for a basket of goods tends to benefit the well-to-do, because they spend more on everything, not just luxury items, but basic necessities as well.
We did an exercise. We looked at four categories of items: uncooked food; basic food serving services that include hawker centres, food courts and coffee shops; telecommunication services; and utilities. If we were to exempt these four categories from GST, we expect to lose about $1.2 billion in tax revenue, of which only $185 million, or 15% of GST not collected, will benefit the bottom 20% of resident households. That is it.
So, this is ineffective as a redistributive tool to make our system fairer. This is not just MOF's conclusion, mind you. This conclusion has also been reached by studies by numerous governments as well as organisations like the OECD.
This is why, in fact, it is fairer and more effective for us to have a single GST rate across the board and to directly help lower-income and middle-income Singaporean families through the GST Voucher scheme, which is what we are doing.
Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, let me explain this with some slides on the screen.
Mr Speaker: Yes. [Slides were shown to hon Members.]
Mr Lawrence Wong: This chart shows the existing effective GST rate, across different income deciles, after subtracting the GST-V and the GST that is absorbed for publicly-subsidised healthcare and education. [Please refer to Annex 1.]
And you can see that the lower-income households pay a much lower effective GST rate than the higher-income households. In fact, on average, the households at the bottom 10% do not pay any GST at all, after offsets. This includes many retiree households without income.
For the second decile, the effective rate is very low. Even for the middle-income households, the effective rate is well below the headline 7% rate, because of how their GST expenses are being offset on a continuing basis.
Essentially, we already have a highly-tiered GST system in Singapore. But it is not tiered by the different types of goods or services, which Ms He Ting Ru had asked for. Instead, it is tiered by the impact of our GST, such that the well-to-do pay more GST and the lower-income are impacted the least. That is a fairer and far more effective way of taxing consumption.
Many Members of the Opposition – in fact, both the Workers' Party and the Progress Singapore Party – object to the very idea of raising GST, claiming that the payouts are temporary and that the GST is regressive and disproportionately impacts the poor. But, again, such misguided claims ignore the way we have implemented GST in Singapore.
What happens when the GST rate is raised to 9%? Together with the enhanced permanent GST Voucher scheme, you can see from this chart, the effective GST rate for the first three deciles remains unchanged. [Please refer to Annex 2.] So, for them, the enhanced permanent GST Voucher neutralises the impact of the increase in GST.
So, it is not true that the GST increase hurts the poor. Not in the way we have designed it.
Even for the middle-income, you can see they continue to pay an effective rate which is well below the headline 9% rate.
There is another effect of the GST which causes it to bear more heavily on the well-off.
A consumption tax also allows us to tax those who may not be earning income in Singapore but are, in fact, well-off. They may be investors or persons of means. They may not be paying much in income tax today even though they have the means to contribute because their income is not easily ascertained. That could be, for example, if they are self-employed.
But they will certainly be consuming more and the GST ensures that such people, those with greater means, will contribute their fair share of taxes.
Mr Leong Mun Wai had made some calculations and he concluded that the middle-income will bear a disproportionate burden of the GST increase. But that is not so.
After the GST rate increase, it is the top 20% of citizen households who will pay a greater share of GST and that is after GST Vouchers and the absorbed GST, netted off. You can see from the chart. Top 20%, the share goes up from 40% to 42%. For the middle 20% of households, they will pay a slightly smaller share of GST. [Please refer to Annex 3.]
Sir, I have covered the issues around GST and the various revenue options.
I would like to assure Members that we have studied and carefully considered every tax option. I appreciate that the Workers' Party offered suggestions on alternatives to the GST. In fact, we have studied every tax option even before the Budget in order to design what we have put together as part of a package of tax changes in this Budget. We have looked at all the options again. As I have explained, there are limitations to all these different proposals and, in some cases, the sums just do not add up.
Every tax move we make is carefully considered so that we have, in the end, a balanced, effective and fair set of tax measures in the Budget.
More importantly, a progressive fiscal system does not and should not mean that each and every tax is progressive, let alone highly progressive. What ultimately matters is the overall system of taxes and transfers, to ensure that the overall system is progressive, and that is what we have done.
If we were to take a revenue-by-revenue approach, we will end up with less revenues and you will also undermine the broader need for everyone to contribute, as part of a durable social compact.
In this regard, I should say that there is a fundamental difference between the measures we have put forward in the Budget and the Workers' Party's alternative proposals or, for that matter, the position taken by the Progress Singapore Party.
From what I have heard in this debate, the basic position of the Workers' Party and the Progress Singapore Party is that we can close the funding gap without having to raise the GST. How? By making various groups pay more. Make the wealthy pay more. Make large companies pay more. Let future generations pay more. Anything but GST increase – even though I have already explained the GST increase in Singapore does not hurt the poor.
I can understand why they think these alternatives are politically more attractive options to offer, but I am afraid they are too simplistic and divisive and will end up creating more problems for our society. Let me explain.
The bottom line is that we cannot sustain a tax system where the bulk or all of the burden is borne by a small group of people at the top end. It will not be possible to hold our society together if only a small group of people is required to pay more taxes all the time, while the rest simply get to piggy-back on their contributions to enjoy more benefits.
That is why having a broad-based tax like the GST is so vital. It makes a direct link between our demands as voters and our responsibilities as citizens. Break that link and we encourage irresponsible lobbying and playing to the gallery. Someone else will pay for the good things in life. Why not demand more?
That is how we have designed our system – on the principle of collective responsibility.
Everyone contributes. Everyone contributes towards the cost of delivering services and everyone benefits from these services, but to different degrees. Those with greater means bear a higher burden and they draw less on Government support but they still enjoy some benefits from the Government. Those with fewer means carry a lighter share but they still contribute something and, in return, they receive more benefits from the Government – more than they put in and more than the better-off.
In this way, we all do our part to help ourselves and one another and we strengthen the trust that binds us together as a society. This is a fair and inclusive system. [Applause.]
We should also remember that the well-to-do contribute in many other ways and not just through income or wealth taxes.
For example, many have set up businesses in Singapore, creating good jobs for Singaporeans and helping to develop new capabilities in our economy. While these individuals are here in Singapore, they consume more and pay more in GST.
Some also set up philanthropic foundations, contributing to our charities and other worthy causes. Ms Foo Mee Har and Ms Denise Phua spoke about this, about enhancing our framework for philanthropy. And we will, certainly, do so.
I want to make it very clear, too, that we have no issue with people doing well, earning more and achieving success in their careers. Our tax system must never discourage hard work, effort and enterprise.
At the same time, we want to avoid in Singapore the emergence of stark income inequalities or social stratifications, which will undermine social cohesion and pull us apart.
So, we will continually review and update our system of taxes and transfers to achieve this balance: to reward enterprise, innovation and work and to mitigate the pressures of social inequalities. We will continue to ensure a fairer and more resilient fiscal structure to underpin our social compact and to strengthen our social solidarity. Many Members in this House – Mr Liang Eng Hwa, Miss Rachel Ong, Mr Xie Yao Quan – have affirmed this and I thank everyone for your strong support.
Finally, let me address the third major question: is the Budget fair to all Singaporeans?
The Budget has something for everyone. It is designed to provide opportunities for all to succeed – the young and the old, the lower-income, the middle-income and even the higher-income.
In fact, a significant part of our social spending goes towards ensuring broad access to affordable and quality housing, healthcare, education and lifelong learning. These are important social provisions and they support the aspirations of all Singaporeans.
But we have also been careful to design our schemes so that those who come from less well-off backgrounds will get more support. I assure Members like Dr Shahira Binte Abdullah and Mr Abdul Samad that we will continue to review our eligibility criteria and schemes so that support is sufficient and targeted towards those in need.
We are continuing with this emphasis in the Budget to provide, generally, for all but to tilt the support towards those who need them more.
Over the last decade, our policy moves have helped to reduce income inequalities and steadily brought down the Gini coefficient. As Mr Mohd Fahmi Aliman and Mr Raj Joshua Thomas said, we are determined to continue reducing wage disparities despite the global economic pressures that are pulling incomes apart and making it harder to hold our society together. That is why we are setting aside significant resources in this Budget for both Progressive Wage and Workfare. This reflects our shared commitment for a fairer and more equal Singapore.
I assure everyone that we are moving as fast as we can to uplift the wages of these lower-wage workers. The new Local Qualifying Salary (LQS) will take effect soon, from 1 April this year. [Please refer to “Clarification by Minister for Finance”, Official Report, 2 March 2022, Vol 95, Issue No 52, Correction by Written Statement section.] We will work with our tripartite partners to get the employers to come on board quickly, even before the mandatory progressive wage requirements kick in.
Overall, our system of taxes and benefits continues to be fair and highly progressive. I will show a chart to reflect this. [Please refer to Annex 4.]
It depicts the overall net benefits, including grants and subsidies, that Singaporeans receive in a year from the Government, after subtracting the taxes they pay. You can see here our seniors are well taken care of. Retirees, on average, receive $6,900 in net benefits per person.
Among Singaporean employed households, the benefits, net of taxes, are significant, at $5,900 per member for the bottom decile. When you add that up for a typical household, the benefits work out to be about 90% of their household income. Put another way, Government benefits will nearly double the amount of resources for these households. It is a significant and tangible form of support.
Of course, as incomes go up, the net benefits are correspondingly reduced. The higher-income are net contributors – they contribute more than they receive. But they, too, benefit. They benefit from the political stability, social cohesion and overall environment that we provide in Singapore.
Some Members have asked if we are doing enough for the sandwich middle-income group. If you look at the chart, for those in the 40th to 60th percentiles of household income, they continue to receive more benefits than the taxes they pay. For those in the 60th to 90th percentiles of household incomes, they pay some taxes, after netting off the subsidies and transfers they receive.
I understand the pressures faced by this group. Some are caregivers who bear a heavy burden financially and emotionally, even physically.
This is why we have been mindful to make sure we expand our suite of broad-based support in areas like education and healthcare. We have also increased healthcare and caregiving-related subsidies and support to relieve the load on these families, especially for those who care for young ones and elderly parents.
Importantly, we have taken extra care to keep the tax burden for this group low. In fact, their tax burden is significantly lower than what it is for their equivalent in most other cities. For the relatively low amount of taxes paid, they enjoy many benefits in Singapore: affordable public housing and healthcare, beautiful parks, excellent infrastructure, quality preschools, schools and tertiary institutions with highly-subsidised fees.
So, when you put it altogether, this is how we have designed our fiscal system: one, a fair revenue structure with everyone contributing, but those with greater means contribute more; two, a fair system of subsidies and transfers where all benefit but those who are less well-off benefit more; three, a system where we keep taxes on middle-income households low by targeting our social safety nets at the more vulnerable households who really need the support, while ensuring universal access to high-quality public housing, education and healthcare.
When you put all three together, we have a highly progressive system of taxes and transfers where the better-off contribute more and receive less in tax-funded benefits while the less well-off still contribute, but a smaller amount, and receive much more in benefits.
This is reflected in our benefit-to-tax ratios, something which many Members are familiar with but which is worth reiterating. [Please refer to Annex 5.]
The bottom 20% of Singaporean households receive about $4 in benefits for every tax dollar paid, the middle 20% of Singaporean households receive about $2 in benefits for every tax dollar paid and the top 20% of Singaporean households are net contributors receiving about $0.30 in benefits for every tax dollar paid.
These ratios that we have achieved for the lower- and middle-income households are no mean feat at all. And we will have to continue working hard to maintain this in the coming years.
Sir, I started work more than 25 years ago as an economist in MOF. So, in that sense, I have been through many Budgets, even though this is my first time delivering one.
Over the years, I have had the chance to study the fiscal systems of many other jurisdictions. I can confidently say that Singapore is unique in having such a highly progressive system of taxes and transfers, while keeping the overall tax burden low for everyone and especially for the middle-income. We have a system that is fair, progressive and effective. It reflects our values: what we stand for and who we are as a people, and it provides a strong foundation for us to build our economy and our society.
That does not mean that we have a perfect system. We are continually reviewing and improving it. We are continually adapting and adjusting our approach, as circumstances change and as our society evolves. Typically, after a Budget, we get two types of responses: \"too much\" and \"too little\".
On the one hand, some say that the Government is doing too much – making costs higher for SMEs and for consumers. On the other hand, there are voices that say we are doing too little – not enough taxes for certain groups, more is better.
After 25 years of public service, I know it is almost impossible for the Government to do anything that pleases everyone all of the time. But I want to assure everyone that every move we make is considered very carefully. We weigh the costs and benefits and the implications. We discuss extensively with all stakeholders, especially our tripartite partners. And that is what the team and I in MOF have worked very hard to do in this Budget – to ensure a balanced and fair package of measures, adjusting what is necessary to meet our evolving needs, while bearing in mind our economic and social imperatives and, above all, upholding the principles of fiscal prudence and sustainability.
That is the approach we will continue to take in reviewing and updating our policies – never compromising on our principles and values, and always doing what is in the best interests of Singapore and Singaporeans. [Applause.]
Sir, with your permission, let me say a few words in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The Budget has something for everyone and will provide opportunities for all to succeed.
I understand the concerns that Singaporeans have about rising prices and the cost of living.
That is precisely why I had decided to defer the GST to 2023 and to stagger the increase over two steps.
Meanwhile, we are extending significant help to Singaporeans through the Household Support Package – we will double the U-Save rebates this year for households, help them with their children’s education and also their daily essentials through the CDC vouchers.
I know many are concerned about the impact of the Ukraine crisis. The Government is closely monitoring the situation. I assure you that we will do more to help Singaporeans and businesses cope with cost of living and business costs should the situation worsen.
Some are worried that even with the delay and staggering of GST, there will still be an impact on prices.
That is why we have the enhanced Assurance Package (AP) and the GST Vouchers (GSTV) to offset the GST expenses of households. Both will be implemented starting from later this year before the GST increase takes effect.
Combining the two, households will receive significant benefits.
For example, a family of four earning $2,500, living in a 3-room HDB flat, will receive around $2,400 a year over the next five years from both the AP and GSTV. This should more than cover their GST expenses during this period.
We have also not forgotten the middle-income or \"sandwich\" group who are taking care of both old and young. They, too, will enjoy significant benefits from the AP and GSTV.
The GST system that we have here in Singapore is unique. Low-income families pay less GST than high-income families.
Besides the GST, we have also made other tax changes in this Budget, like the income and property taxes, so that those with higher incomes and who own properties with an annual value over $30,000 pay more taxes.
These tax changes will generate additional revenue which we urgently need to fund our rising Government expenditures, especially in the area of healthcare, so that we can take better care of our seniors.
But we are doing this in a way that is fair and progressive. That means everyone pays something in taxes. The less well-off contribute a smaller amount of taxes and receive much more in benefits. On the other hand, the well-to-do contribute more in taxes and receive less in benefits.
Some Members of Parliament have suggested that we should draw more from our reserves to cover our funding gap. But that would mean leaving behind less and less for our children and grandchildren. If we keep doing this, one day, we will deplete our reserves.
Like our forefathers, we must exercise stewardship and responsibility over our hard-earned money. We must not only be fiscally prudent, but also plan for the future. This is how we ensure that Singapore’s wealth can pass down the generations.
I believe the changes to the tax structure we introduced this Budget will help to strengthen our social compact and social cohesion because we are all chipping in and doing our part to tackle our challenges and build a better Singapore together.
Ultimately, that is how we can build a fairer and more inclusive society, where no one gets left behind and all can enjoy the fruits of Singapore’s success.
(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, in every Budget, we discuss and debate the design of policy parameters or schemes in monetary terms. But the Budget is much more than that. It reflects something deeper: our ethos and our values. It is an expression of our shared compact to tackle our challenges together, to never stop thinking of tomorrow and to never cease building a better Singapore.
All this boils down to trust, something the Prime Minister spoke about recently in this House – trust between the Government and the people; the trust we have in one another and trust across the generations.
Trust is fragile and precious. It takes effort and time to build up, but it can be destroyed very quickly. When there is trust, we can achieve great things together, we can make the impossible possible. But when we lose faith in one another, even simple things become impossible.
So, whatever views we may have about the Budget, whatever differences we may have on policy issues, let us always work to strengthen trust in our institutions and in one another.
That means debating the issues based on facts and not biased soundbites, or worse, half-truths and lies. It means being honest and upfront with Singaporeans about what we need to do together; not sugar-coating realities or pretending that there are quick and painless remedies available.
In this Budget, I have set out plainly the challenges and also the opportunities ahead of us and explained why we need to move on difficult measures like the GST increase. It is not the popular thing for me to do: certainly, not for my first Budget as Finance Minister.
But I have a responsibility to do what is right and what is in the best interests of all Singaporeans; not what is politically expedient now but will store up problems for the future.
I am convinced that the measures in the Budget are necessary and will put us in a stronger position to strengthen the self-reinforcing system of trust we now have and to ensure that every citizen contributes their fair share to building our common enterprise, which is Singapore.
A lot has been said about the redistributive aspects of the Budget. But, in fact, to deepen the trust in one another, we must also engage the human spirit and involve every Singaporean. We must strengthen the culture of responsibility for one another, so we all feel a renewed sense of duty towards one another and not just a right to the benefits of citizenship.
Singapore must always remain an open and egalitarian society, one without rigid hierarchies and class distinctions, but with a big heart and a generosity of spirit. We do not begrudge those who do well. Instead, we celebrate them and we take pride in their achievements. At the same time, for those who have succeeded, there is no need to flaunt one’s wealth or be ostentatious about it. Instead, keep a modest and unassuming approach and do your part to give back to society, so that wealth can be recycled and invested back into society to expand opportunities for others.
Sir, I have confidence that Singaporeans can instinctively sense if any Budget is not worthy of them and fails to renew their trust in the Government, in one another and in the future. They can decipher whether the Budget reflects our shared vision of a fair and just society, whether this Government is one they can trust to manage our resources in a way that is in line with our values and whether this Government is keeping faith with them and their children.
In the weekend immediately after the Budget, I had several engagement sessions. As someone shared with me, his wife asked him: \"Why are you so happy to pay more taxes?\" This is by no means a well-to-do individual, just an ordinary person. But his wife asked him: \"Why are you so happy to pay more taxes?\" His reply: \"It's the right thing to do.\"
In a dialogue organised by the CDCs, including their community and corporate partners, a participant said she did not need the cash payout from the Assurance Package and would like to donate it to families with greater needs. I was cheered by this and I am glad to share that we will have an online portal set up in the coming months, where Singaporeans can indicate their preferred charities for the Government to directly channel the payout to, if they wish.
In the end, the Budget is about all of us as Singaporeans, driven by our compassion and our conviction to build a better society for all; strengthening our trust in one another and keeping faith with future generations, as our forefathers kept faith with us.
And Sir, as one united people, we can be confident in charting our new way forward together and in building a fairer, greener and more inclusive Singapore together. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would also like to thank the Finance Minister, particularly for the acknowledgement towards the Workers' Party for coming up with alternative revenue proposals for the Government's consideration. And we did so, of course, knowing that since the decision to raise GST was announced a few years ago, circumstances have changed.
COVID-19 was unanticipated, of course. And core inflation right now is at its highest level in nine years. I think the prices of goods and services are not a point I need to repeat. Minister would know, thanks to CPI information from MAS and MTI, that price pressures will impact Singaporeans, particularly at the low- and middle-income levels.
This is even as the question is important with respect to raising the GST at this time. The Minister made some brief points about it. He had thought about it carefully. But I think the question remains: is this a reasonable thing to do in these circumstances? That is the first question.
And I think the point arises more acutely when you take into account what market watchers have said about the OECD Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) 2.0, which may well result in corporate tax revenue gains for Singapore. And I think this is a point that has been raised at the start of the week, coinciding with this Budget debate.
To that end, my question is: can I ask what are the Government's current estimates, given that there is an implementation deadline of 2023 for BEPS? What is the range of estimates of the net impact of Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 on our corporate income tax revenues? Surely, MOF would have prepared itself for these various scenarios. And can I confirm that MOF does not have these various scenarios planned out?
This really brings up the other point the Minister raised about red herrings, that, somehow, when the Opposition asks for revenue and expenditure projections, these are red herrings. But it cannot be so. Because, as I have mentioned in my Budget speech, it is something that many jurisdictions do. Hong Kong has a medium range forecast right up to fiscal year 2026/2027. They have got assumptions, of course. You are projecting into the future, so, it cannot be perfect and I think people will give the Government buffer and leeway for that. But that is incredibly important and that is precisely why the Workers' Party put forward different revenue streams.
The Minister rounded off at the end about the importance of information, facts. I completely agree with him. But would not this approach not to make a call for information, characterising it as a red herring, but actually just producing that information lead to the outcome that the Minister himself speaks of and reduces the prospect of individuals mischaracterising positions which, one could argue, has also been done in the course of this debate? I think there were arguments made in the extreme which were not put forward by Workers' Party (WP) Members of Parliament. I do not think anybody suggested raising personal income tax for the upper tier up to 42% to make up for the GST hole. That was not done. But it was, nonetheless, characterised as an Opposition idea. So, I think it is a case of what is good for the goose must be good for the gander. And this is something I hope can actually be alleviated through more projections of what the Government needs, how much it is going to collect, because this will result in a more fruitful debate.
In the course of my Budget speech, I did make a point about the revenue that the carbon tax will bring in. I hear the Minister's point. He said it in the beginning, when he opened the debate. He is saying it now. He does not expect carbon tax to bring in new sources of revenue. But still a debate has to be had. What are those numbers? Particularly, when you look at utility prices, utility bills for average Singaporeans, which the Minister says in his speech are going up. I believe he used a 25-year timeline. But if you follow it in a linear fashion, that is $12 by 2030 – an increase.
So, those numbers should really be brought forward by the Government so that we can debate these and talk about how people, both at the lower- and middle-income levels, can be supported in a better way.
I think the Minister raised a number of other points. We spoke about the various levers. The other WP Members, of course, will chip in and make those clarifications with the Minister. But Mr Louis Chua is not here today. He will be happy to come into this debate, I can assure you, but he is self-isolating, just to be on the safe side. I think he was COVID-19-positive yesterday but it was a false positive. So, I think better for him to stay away. But he will definitely come back to this in the course of what happens with BEPS and actually what are those projections that the Government is working with vis-a-vis its impact.
A number of other points, like I said, I will let the other WP Members come in. But I think there is a useful question to ask about the reserves. We have had this exchange in this House a number of times on our position on the reserves. I do not think it is an accurate reflection to say that, first instance, you look at and turn to the reserves. That is not true.
And we have really made the Government's own approach informed in this House as to how it also takes a certain approach to change how it deals with the reserves mechanism, at quite short intervals – 2008, 2015. We are entering a decade where circumstances are changing quite significantly. The Minister himself recognised in his Budget speech that, I believe, there is a review of even healthcare resourcing at paragraph 239: \"We are thinking through this healthier SG strategy carefully. It will entail a review of our resourcing approach and healthcare financing schemes as well as the need for upstream investments and preventive healthcare.\"
So, clearly, the other numbers that were in his speech about potentially where we could be with healthcare expenditure if we do not keep it in check, may not really be what will, eventually, be the outcome, because there is a review going on.
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh, this part is really for clarification. So, I will allow preamble and, as Leader of Opposition, I am prepared to allow you some leeway. But let us keep to the point.
Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, I take the point.
Mr Speaker: And before I end, just a reminder to the rest of the Members, this is meant for clarification. So, if you have some preamble, I would allow it, but please limit that time.
Mr Pritam Singh: Obliged. Speaker, I will not abuse this.
Let me just then come to the point before I hand it over to the other colleagues of mine to make clarifications. It was previously said that we have drawn on our reserves equivalent to 20 years of past Budget surpluses. This was the Government position vis-a-vis COVID-19. \"We have used a generation's worth of savings to combat a crisis of a generation.\"
My colleague, Mr Louis Chua, asked Deputy Prime Minister Heng, in his capacity as Finance Minister previously, after accounting for the draw, where would our reserves be, compared to five years ago and 10 years ago? And he made the point that this really was not answered and he put the question to Finance Minister Lawrence Wong. After having a better fix on the number, $42.9 billion drawn on Past Reserves, where would our reserves be today, as compared to five years ago? Is it higher or is it lower? I think that is a question that can be answered in one word.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Sir, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for these comments and questions. There are few of them and I will take them in turn.
First, on the increase of GST. It was a very difficult decision for all the reasons I have explained: recognising, on the one hand, the concerns that Singaporeans have about higher prices but, on the other hand, the urgent and very pressing revenue needs we have to address. That is why I highlighted that I decided, eventually, to delay the GST and to stagger the increase over two years.
I suppose Mr Singh's point is that even that is not enough.
And I can understand that some people might feel and be concerned that even that delay and that staggering are not sufficient to address concerns, especially in light of the recent developments in the external environment. And that is why I mentioned just now that the best way to deal with this is: firstly, if, indeed, inflation turns out to be more persistent and higher than expected – which may happen – we will deal with that decisively and separately, and we have the tools and resources to do so. How? Well, we have monetary policy to deal with inflation; secondly, we are able to take a series of actions to better secure our energy supplies; and, thirdly, we can help households and businesses directly. We have the resources to do so. And, if the need arises, we will not hesitate to take all of these actions. So, that is the first assurance we have for everyone.
The second assurance is that, even setting aside additional measures and actions, we have already done a lot. And I have been trying to explain that. Look at the significant help that is on the table today: household support package this year, plus Assurance Package and the GST Vouchers, both of which have been enhanced, combined together, and both being rolled out this year before the GST goes up. A lot of help, which will, for most households, delay the impact of the GST increase by five years or more.
So, the two, taken together, I think should assure everyone that we are not doing this in a cavalier manner at all. We considered it very, very carefully before we decided to proceed. And making sure that we are taking all the necessary actions and steps and have contingency measures in place to take care of the concerns of every Singaporean. That is number one.
Second, on projections, numbers and data, I accept Mr Singh's point. I was not attempting to characterise it unfairly. I was sharing my feelings about these repeated requests for information as perhaps distracting us from the real issues. But I accept Mr Singh's clarification and I assure him that he has my commitment that we will continue to put out more information, as much as possible, in order to provide for more informed debates.
And I hope he also takes what he said seriously, that the Opposition will also exercise leeway in recognising that these projections in the outer years are inherently fraught with a great deal of uncertainty, especially for a small, little, open economy like Singapore, where so many external events can never be predicted with any degree of certainty. So, very often, we do not even project GDP beyond the year. So, when you talk about outer year projections for the economy, for fiscal projections, there will be a very high cone of uncertainty around these numbers. And we, therefore, want to make sure that if we were to provide any figures, we do not inadvertently mislead people, cause people to have the wrong impression. And I seek the Leader of the Opposition's understanding, too, that, in putting out such figures in the future, we may very well get it wrong, because there is a lot of uncertainty when we project into the outer years. But he has my commitment that we will continue to see how we can improve the data and information that we put out.
Third, on the reserves, I have explained our position and why changes in the rules, done hastily, we think, are not wise, are not prudent and will come at the detriment of the next generation. If we have to change any rules, we will have to seriously consider them very, very carefully. But if we make any tweaks in parameters – more land sales, more NIRC – what it basically means at the end of the day is that our future generations will be the ones to have to carry the burden. They will have to pay more in taxes in the future. That is what it comes down to. And they will have that much less to deal with any future emergencies, which we all know, will come at a more frequent rate in the coming years.
So, all I say is, let us have a care about this. And I do not think it is prudent to make this change now, in place of raising the GST or other tax changes, which we can and should do.
As for the quantum of reserves, I have actually mentioned that in my speech. I said that our reserves are growing. We would not be able to tell you what the actual figure is, for the reasons I have explained. It is not in our national interest. But as I have said in my speech, our reserves are growing.
But our economy, our needs, the complexity of our needs and the magnitude of the challenges we face are growing even faster. What is more important when you drill it down is, are we accumulating more than necessary?
And the answer is no. How do we know that this is the case? Because our NIRC, as I mentioned before, we project will continue to grow at a rate that keeps pace with economic growth. That is how we know that we are not over-accumulating. Whatever we are getting from NIRC today at 3.5% of GDP, on average, over the past few years, we do not expect that to continue rising as a share of GDP. It will keep pace with economic growth.
And as I mentioned in my speech, even that, we cannot be sure that we can achieve that. But if we are able to do so, it will already be a significant achievement because of all the headwinds that we are facing in the global investment environment.
I think I have answered all the questions from Mr Singh, Sir.
Oh, sorry. One more question – BEPS. For BEPS, again, this is one of those things. We have been studying this very carefully. And, as I mentioned just now on Pillar 1, the rules are still being finetuned. It is not over yet. It is still being discussed.
Yes, there is the pronouncement of 2023, but I do not know for a fact that this will happen in 2023 because many details are still being worked out. So, that is one of the reasons why I mentioned I hesitate to put out any figures at this stage.
But taking the earlier point about putting out more information for a more informed debate, we will go back and think about whether we might provide a range of estimates about what the impact of BEPS 2.0 might be for both Pillars 1 and 2. I would say it would range from neutral to perhaps some increase, but we will have to look at the figures. We will provide some figures, hopefully, to help everyone get a better sense of what it might be.
What is more important, especially the point I mentioned, which is that even if Pillars 1 and 2, combined, yield us additional revenue, we will very likely have to reinvest that revenue back into ensuring we remain competitive and attract our fair share of investments.
Why? Because the reality is competition for investments is not going to go away just because of BEPS 2.0. In fact, it will get even more intense, and it will intensify in other non-tax areas, which we will, therefore, have to fund and have resources ready for. So, even if there is a plus from BEPS 2.0, I am, in fact, not confident that that additional revenue will help us with our social spending needs, and, especially not for our healthcare spending needs, which will continue to rise very sharply.
Mr Speaker: Mr Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh: I thank the Minister for the reply. I think it just reinforces the point that I have been trying to make about the alternative revenue streams that the Workers' Party came up with in the course of this debate, knowing that there are quite fundamental changes taking place worldwide where we need a better fix on what the revenue situation will be.
I think the Minister missed out one question that I also put in my speech about the carbon tax and the estimates that the Government has with its increase at the tiers up to 2030. I think those numbers would be appreciated. Even though I take Minister's point, as I mentioned in my earlier clarification, that he does not foresee this to be a revenue generator, if I can put it that way. But I think this is something that we should have a debate about, in good time.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Thank you, Speaker. We will not be having such a difficult debate, if Singaporeans, especially the middle-class Singaporeans are not asked to pay more taxes. Sir, I have two questions first, for clarification. I have a total of six questions. I hope the Speaker will allow me to ask all the six questions, but let me ask two questions first.
I have given a number of the tax burden of the GST on the middle class to be $1.2 billion. Take away all the compensating packages that you are going to give them, divide the taxpayers into three groups. Top 20%, the middle class who will not get permanent vouchers, and those taxpayers who will get permanent vouchers. How is the $3 billion or $3.5 billion additional GST going to spread over these three groups? That is question one.
Question two: PSP has not been talking a lot about alternative sources of revenue because we think there is a lot of justification to make use of the unutilised revenues. But if you look at alternative avenues, actually, it is very easy from our point of view. The second question: if you have to choose between a 2% GST hike and a 3% to 4% personal income tax hike on the top 10%, they will yield about the same amount of revenue, would you still choose the GST 2% hike?
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, let me answer the second question first because it is quite straightforward. The sums do not add up, Mr Leong. The sums do not add up. A 2-percentage point to 3-percentage point increase in the top personal income tax rate will never get anywhere close to the revenue we get from a 2% increase in GST. It will not.
So, there is no choice here. In fact, we are already raising the personal income tax rates in this Budget. We will get some money from it, but it is not enough and that is why the GST increase is needed.
But as I have repeatedly said, the objections to GST on the basis that it hurts the poor are completely unfounded. You may disagree with the GST, fine. But do not use that as a reason for disagreeing with GST. There is no basis for that in Singapore. So, stop pretending that this is the reason.
On the first question, impact on the middle class. I know what you are trying to do with your computations, but I have shown in my chart and in my speech a different way of showing it, which is the share of GST paid by the different groups. And you can see from that, the chart is self-explanatory, the middle 20%, the share burden that they pay for GST, the increase in GST comes down.
Effectively, what it means is that the increase in GST, the $3.5 billion of revenues that the 2% of GST generates, will be borne by the upper-middle and the top income earners. That is what it comes down to. It shows in the effective rate chart, where you saw, when we stacked up the effective GST rates and we showed the increase in GST to 9%, that extra burden is all borne by the upper-income deciles. Upper-middle and top-end.
And that is exactly how we have designed the system. It is that group that will bear the burden of the GST increase, while the rest of the population pay the GST rate, but the impact of GST expenses is offset on a continuing basis. And that is why we can have the confidence of implementing a consumption tax in Singapore that is fair, effective and does not hurt the poor.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Speaker, thank you. I think the Minister did not answer my question. After all, someone has to pay for the $3 billion or $3.5 billion GST. So, I am asking the Minister what is the tax burden on the different groups of Singaporeans? You cannot say there is no increase in tax burden.
Secondly, on the income tax. Can I ask the Minister then, what is the total taxable income attributable to the top 10%? I can tell you that a 3% increase in the income tax on the top 10% will yield $3 billion. What is the total taxable income?
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, I have to differ with Mr Leong Mun Wai. I do not intend to get into a debate on figures with him. If he thinks that me and all my MOF officers know less about revenues than him, he is entitled to take that view. I do not wish to entertain or continue the debate further when we are not even able to — if the Member is unable to accept facts which I have put out and says that that is wrong, I do not know how to debate any further.
Because then what are we debating about? The Member is unable even to accept an authoritative fact from the Minister for Finance and say it is wrong, so, what is the point of continuing the debate on facts and data if the Member does not accept the figures which I have put out on personal income tax?
I have already explained that it does not yield that figure. Just look at the revenue generated from the tax change we have just introduced in this Budget. It is nowhere in the region of billions. Nowhere!
So, I can only say the facts that the Member has are wrong and it should not form the basis for public policy.
On the first question, I have, in fact, answered it. I did not say that there is no increase in burden. Please do not distort what I said. Listen to what I said carefully. I said the burden is borne by the upper-middle and top-end. And it is reflected in the chart and we will be able to circulate the chart after this, put it out on the website and Mr Leong Mun Wai can have all the time in the world to analyse the figures and internalise them. Thank you, Sir.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Minister for his stout and robust defence of the need to raise GST.
I have three clarification questions with regard to three separate areas. The first has to do with corporate taxation. And the question is whether the Government plans to subscribe to the spirit of the BEPS agreement as a signatory and to roll out, broadly speaking, the framework as prescribed. I mentioned this, in part, because the Workers' Party's proposal for corporate taxation is quite different from the hypothetical.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, if we can just keep it to largely clarifications. Sure, I will allow some preamble, but not another speech again.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Fair enough. So, that was my first question. My second question has to do with wealth taxation and the question is whether the Minister believes that the modest increase in wealth taxation that is set forth in our proposal, which is broadly consistent with – in fact, it significantly is lower than some other neutral analysts have had, our estimate is $1.2 billion – whether he thinks that this modest increase in wealth taxation will be such that it will make Singapore so unattractive that high net worth individuals would relocate and be footloose in that sense.
My third question has to do with land sales. I accept the position that this Government has that they treat land sales as part of reserves, but then I am wondering if the Minister is able to reconcile the treatment of land sales that are less than 10 years. So, land leases that are of one to nine years, with the broad argument that land sales must all immediately go into reserves, rather than take the first nine years as part of recurrent revenue.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Sir, on the three questions, first, on BEPS 2.0. We are, certainly, committed to implementing the spirit of BEPS 2.0. We will do so while ensuring that this is, indeed, implemented around the world. Because our bigger concern is that it must be a level playing field. It cannot be that some countries do it and others do not; and then, there are revenue leakages that will undermine Singapore.
So, we are watching. Yes, countries have signed up to it. But countries have to go through their own domestic processes to roll out BEPS 2.0. It is not a certainty that this will get through their respective parliaments.
Signing the declaration is one thing; 2023, but will it get through all the countries' parliaments, legislation and implemented in law? Not so sure yet. So, we do want to make sure that there is a level playing field and we will do our part as a signatory, as a responsible member of the international community, to likewise implement, when there is that global consensus and global implementation.
On wealth taxes, I recognise a proposal from Assoc Prof Jamus Lim and the Workers' Party for a net wealth tax that will yield revenue of $1.2 billion. I have explained that, yes, in theory, you could design a scheme like that. You could. But in practice, it will be much more complicated and it is not just about the fears of people leaving, but the fact that there are so many ways for high net worth individuals to circumvent whatever taxation rules you have in place and to plan away the burden of the wealth tax on themselves.
The ones who do, are usually the ones with better means and higher wealth. And this is why, even in Switzerland, for example, if you look at the net wealth tax they have there, the burden of tax falls on a much broader base of the population. The so-called \"net wealth tax\" in Switzerland is not a wealth tax for the top-end only. Many middle-class, many middle-income people pay for that net wealth tax. This was our experience in estate duty, mind you. As I mentioned, the top-end, the very wealthy, knew how to plan it away. But the burden ended up falling on the middle-income and the upper middle-income. That is our bigger concern, on top of the concern that, yes, there will be some competitiveness reasons. That is also a relevant concern.
And that is why we have to study this very carefully. We have to think through, look at the experiences of other jurisdictions. Not very many left to study because, as I have said, many of them have dropped the idea of doing a net wealth tax. We will have to consider what is suitable for Singapore. So, we will not rule it out. But at this stage, we do not have something that we are confident can be effectively implemented, suited to Singapore's circumstances.
On land sales, the easy answer is, for these shorter duration leases, we have decided for flexibility and, because there are more transactions like that, there is no need to regard them as assets and, therefore, we take them in as current revenue. But for the ones with longer leases, we treat them as assets and then, therefore, we take them into our reserves framework and accord the treatment accordingly.
It is a judgement call. We could have said everything, regardless of the duration of the lease. But we have worked out what we think is a reasonable balance and that has been decided and agreed with the President's Office.
Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Sir, the Minister accused Workers' Party of double standards by calling for higher taxes on tobacco, because that is regressive. But would he not agree that more taxes on tobacco and gambling are acceptable, if they can help discourage that behaviour because the effects of that behaviour have far higher health and family costs on the lower-income and, therefore, are more regressive?
Secondly, the Minister said that those with fewer means will bear a lighter share of the GST increase, but they get more benefits from the Government and more than what they put in. That was what he said just now in his speech. He said this makes a fair and inclusive system and he repeated that point in his Chinese speech as well. And he just said just now that the burden is all borne by the upper-middle and the top deciles of income earners.
Sir, if those with fewer means really get back more than what they pay, by the Minister's logic, how will they feel that they are contributing?
And to be clear, Workers' Party is not against the lower-income getting back more, if this is, indeed, the case. But can the Minister clarify whether or not the GST hike will make the lower- and middle-income pay more in net taxes over a 20- or 30-year period?
Mr Lawrence Wong: Sir, I did not say that I was opposed to sin taxes or to tobacco taxes. I was simply highlighting that the Workers' Party made a big issue of regressivity in one case, but not in another case. So, I did not understand why there was inconsistency there. But we have never made a big issue of it and, in fact, we do not look at fiscal systems like that. As I have said, it is not appropriate to consider item by item. We look at the system as a whole. And where sin taxes are concerned, externality tax, we do it not for revenue-generating purposes. Yes, it generates some but not a lot. But really more for curbing consumption, which we think is necessary. And that is why we will continue to review these taxes from time to time, as we have been doing.
On the second point, the burden of GST increase and how our system works, I think Mr Gerald Giam is saying, well, you want everyone to contribute, but, with GST, the low-income do not end up paying. Net-net, they do not have to pay. So, how do they contribute? But the point is this. With the GST, yes, they may get back something in terms of continuing offsets, but they do pay. There is a price. If there were no price to pay, we will not be having this debate. Everyone will happily say, \"GST goes up and there is no opposition to it\".
But I think the Workers' Party and the PSP know that this is something not very popular on the ground and, therefore, they are objecting to it. But because people have to pay for it, then they feel that they are contributing to the system. Everyone contributes. With GST, we bring that about. It is a broad-based consumption tax which impacts everyone and everyone feels it, but it is also the way they can contribute and chip in to the system.
But what we have done is do it in a fair way by offsetting the impact. And because the GST Vouchers are permanent, they are conjoined with our GST system. It is together, permanent. Therefore, we have confidence to say that, on a continuing basis, the charts that I have described, how we can offset the impact on the low-income groups. That is something we can do, not just today and not just five years, but on a continuing basis.
Mr Speaker: Just a reminder to Members. You do know that we have a Committee of Supply coming up, where the specific and technical questions can be asked. So, if we could keep our focus on the overall fiscal policy of the Government. Mr Leon Perera.
Mr Leon Perera: Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I thank the Finance Minister for his wrap-up speech. There are three clarifications. Before that, just a very short sort of response or preamble.
I think the Minister talked about how much the personal income tax and property tax would have to rise to fill the hole if GST was not hiked. I want to clarify that when my colleague Assoc Prof Jamus Lim outlined different proposals for revenue generation, there was never the intent that the entire burden of plugging that hole falls onto personal income tax or property tax.
So, with respect, Sir, I think the view that we are putting forth proposals that soak the rich is a mischaracterisation. In fact, it is a caricaturisation of what we have put forward. The bulk of revenue generation in those proposals actually fell on the changes to the land sales, the changes to NIRC and also the net effect on corporate tax's take from compliance with the BEPS regime. Not a discretionary increase in corporate tax, but how that would impact the overall corporate tax taken. I think our point there is that —
Mr Speaker: Mr Leon Perera, if you can come to your clarifications and questions, please.
Mr Leon Perera: Alright. Let me move to my first clarification, which is: I had an exchange with the hon Minister Lawrence Wong in this House in 2018. I asked the Minister at that time what would be a reasonable time interval when we review these rules governing the reserves. They were amended in 2008, they were amended again in 2015. So, what is reasonable time? Are we saying that it is set in stone and we will never amend it? And the hon Minister's reply to me at that time was, \"you never say never\" and these things do have to be reviewed at a certain point. So, my question is, what does the Minister think is a reasonable point in time when we review these rules, as we have suggested?
The second clarification is on the concept of an optimal level of reserves. I would invite the Minister to agree with me that as the absolute level of reserves increases in dollar terms as a proportion of GDP, we must accept that it is legitimate to bring into place policies that slow the growth of that reserve without depleting it. On that note, would it be the case that the Minister rejects altogether any notion that there is an optimal level of reserves and we keep adding to the reserves, ad infinitum, without any regard to the absolute level and its relation to GDP?
The last clarification is, the Minister alluded to the fact that when we make suggestions about the reserves, land sales, NIRC, there is a certain cavalier mindset involved in doing so. I would like to ask him, the PAP Government in this House did exactly that, in 2008 and they did it again in 2015. Was that cavalier? And if that was not cavalier, why is it cavalier when the Workers' Party now suggests doing that?
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, on the three points. On the first, I recognise that the Workers' Party's suggestions for revenue alternatives could entail mix and matches as they have highlighted, a bit from here, a bit from there. But I still say, as I have highlighted, the sums will not add up. Why? Basically, you are asking to tax more from three possible groups as an alternative to GST: the wealthy and the better-off, large companies and future generations. So, that is what it comes down to.
The future generations would mean land sales and NIRC, these sorts of changes. And I have explained why we do not think it is financially prudent to make those changes.
Large companies, I have highlighted. This is contingent on the evolving rules around BEPS 2.0 and, even if we were to get some additional revenue, we are very likely to have to reinvest back to strengthen our competitiveness.
This leaves me with the third group – the wealthy. And that means wealth taxes, which, I have explained, can be difficult to do, or property tax or personal income tax. And, if you were to home in on property tax, I have explained, if you want to get another billion dollars of revenue from property tax, you probably would have to double property tax rates across the board.
That is just $1 billion. GST is $3.5 billion. So, where does the money come from? And that is why I highlighted the sums still do not add up.
I appreciate and I take these in good faith that there are these different options that the Workers' Party has offered as alternatives. We have studied all of them before the Budget. During the Budget debate, when these options were raised, we went into them again with my team, but we still are not able to make the sums add up.
The next two questions I will take them together – when is the next reasonable interval when we might review our reserves' rules and is there an optimal level of reserves? It is very hard to answer these questions, because I do not have a crystal ball. Really, who knows what will happen to the world in the next 30 years or more? Really. Can anybody predict? It is almost impossible.
So, what would trigger us to change? I think it will have to be something really very disruptive. Not just once off, but on a permanent basis, and we will have to study the options very, very carefully at that point in time. Because there are deep, deep implications if we were to change anything on the reserves' rules. Deep implications for intergenerational equity, essentially, resulting in our next generation having to pay more taxes, as I have said, and having less to deal with any emergencies in the future.
That is why I would say not something we will do today because we have other options. We have the GST, which we can implement in a fair way. We have other tax options.
That is the reason why I ask, well, I wonder, maybe this is taking it a little bit too lightly. Because why turn to the Reserves when we have all these options and why make the GST into the last resort? But reserves – okay. Future generations – never mind, let us do it. But GST – cannot touch.
Why? Why take that approach? Especially when the way we have implemented the GST is not the way the Workers' Party has characterised it. It is not, and you know it, too. I have shown the charts. I have explained it. We have explained it before multiple times and we have reiterated our explanation.
So, if you understand this, then why are your proposals anything but GST increase? Even Reserves can be touched, but not GST increase. That part, honestly, I cannot understand. It makes me wonder why.
The Workers' Party cites that the GST will hurt the poor. It does not. I have explained it. And on that basis, they cannot support the Budget. Really? Do you know what you are saying then? You do not want to support all the things we have in this Budget? To uplift the wages of lower-income workers, Workfare, progressive wages, to help vulnerable families with KidSTART. You are rejecting all of that?
I find it hard to understand, frankly, on the misguided view that GST hurts the poor, which it does not. I can only, therefore, ask whether you are taking things too lightly. Or whether you are raising opposition because of other reasons, political reasons? Or other things? As opposed to seriously looking at the facts and doing what is right for Singapore.
The Workers' Party is entitled to their views and to not supporting the Budget. But it will not stop me as the Minister for Finance from doing what is right and it will not stop this Government from continuing with all our efforts to build a better Singapore. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa. There is time for one clarification from you.
Ms Hazel Poa (Non-Constituency Member): Just now, the Minister for Finance responded to my question about the Budget cut. I did not just ask about the 1% cut, which is meant to start next year but also the 2% Budget cut that was supposed to have been implemented from FY2017.
Can I take it that the same reason applies? That it was not really a cut but was reallocated to new initiatives and that therefore this is a reallocation, not strictly a Budget cut? Do the new initiatives, therefore, include subsidies to F1 as well as the transfer to SPH Media Trust?
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, yes, Ms Poa is right. When we talk about these Budget cuts, they are in the context of a budgetary framework that allows us to reduce – so, the cuts are real, mind you. The cuts are real and actually applied to Ministry expenditures. But Singapore also has new priorities. And, therefore, this allows us to reallocate expenditure from existing to new, without having to just top up more monies. In this way, we can moderate the increases in expenditures.
On how or what are the areas these reallocated monies go to and whether the SPH Media Trust and F1 are part of it, I think we can discuss all these in the respective Ministries' Committee of Supply debates when they come up. Thank you, Sir.
[(proc text) Question put, \"That Parliament approves the financial policy of the Government for the financial year 1 April 2022 to 31 March 2023.\" (proc text)]
Hon Members say \"Aye\".
Mr Speaker: To the contrary, say no. Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Workers' Party would like to record its dissent. Thank you. No off-set package lasts forever.
Mr Speaker: The Members who would like to record dissent, please stand up for record.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Mr Speaker, Sir.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong, we are taking a record of the dissent.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Before we do that —
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong, we are taking a record of the dissent. If you have other clarifications, you can raise them during the Committee of Supply. Thank you.
[(proc text) Hon Members Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song, Mr Leong Mun Wai, Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim, Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap, Mr Leon Perera, Ms Hazel Poa, Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong rose in their place for their dissent to be recorded. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Members may sit down. Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Our Chair Ms Sylvia Lim, Members of Parliament He Ting Ru and Louis Chua are not here because they are self-isolating. I just want to state that they take the same position as well.
Mr Speaker: Understand. But they need to be in person to record their dissent.
Mr Pritam Singh: I understand.
Mr Speaker: Let me repeat.
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament approves the financial policy of the Government for the financial year 1 April 2022 to 31 March 2023.\" (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Commencement Time of Committee of Supply","subTitle":"Announcement by Mr Speaker","sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Speaker: Order. We have completed the debate on the Budget Statement. We are now going into the Committee of Supply to debate the estimates. I have revised the commencement time of the Committee of the Supply to start immediately.
With a change in commencement time, the revised \"guillotine\" time for Head U – Prime Minister's Office, is 6.00 pm. Members are to note that the proceedings in the Committee of Supply will be taken till 8.40 pm for today. Hon Members will be notified of the revised conclusion times for the subsequent Heads of Expenditure.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Estimates of Expenditure for the Financial Year 1 April 2022 to 31 March 2023","subTitle":"Committee of Supply – Paper Cmd 12 of 2022","sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [1st Allotted Day]. (proc text)]
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
The Chairman: Main and Development Estimates of Expenditure of Singapore for the financial year 1 April 2022 to 31 March 2023 contained in Paper Cmd 12 of 2022. For convenience, I shall take the totals for each Head of Expenditure in the Main and Development Estimates as they appear in the last columns of the schedules of estimated expenditure under the Main and Development Estimates Outlays for FY 2022 on pages 6 and 7 respectively of the Command Paper.
A total of 639 amendments to the Estimates of Expenditure have been submitted this year. The guillotine times to the discussion of the Heads of Expenditure under Standing Order 92(7)(a) have taken into consideration the earlier commencement time of a Sitting, the reduction of Question Time and the extension of Sitting times of the Committee of Supply for each allotted day.
I must remind hon Members that the total time for discussion of each Head of Expenditure includes the replies from the front bench. With the assistance of the digital timer in the Chamber, I trust that hon Members will be able to keep to the speech times indicated against their amendments. I would urge hon Members, both from the back and front benches, to adhere to their time limits, as I will be stringent in my time-keeping.
I shall deal first with the Heads of Expenditure in respect of which amendments stand on the Order Paper Supplement. Head U – Prime Minister's Office. Ms Tin Pei Ling.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Committee of Supply – Head U (Prime Minister's Office)","subTitle":"Good governance","sectionType":"OS","content":"Ms Tin Pei Ling (MacPherson): Chairman, I beg to move, \"That the total sum to be allocated for Head U of the Estimates be reduced by $100.\"
Sir, since the launch of the Smart Nation initiative by the Prime Minister eight years ago, in the formation of the Smart Nation and Digital Government Group five years ago, we were fortunate to have benefited from the coordinated build-up of digital infrastructure, capabilities, talent pool as smart tools through the Smart Nation initiative. This preparedness allowed our Government agencies to respond swiftly and act decisively during the COVID-19 crisis.
But beyond responses to COVID-19, what is the current progress of our Smart Nation efforts and how have we fared so far? As we emerge from the pandemic, as we gain invaluable real experiences and as some advanced economies move into the space of Web 3.0, will there be a change to how we envision Singapore as a Smart Nation?
With our limited space and resources and as the world competes for top talents, will the Government roll out e-residency to allow highly talented digital nomads and businesses to transact and value-add to our economy without having to reside here and compete for our physical space? They can become Singapore's digital economic residents but without the need for citizenship entitlements. This can bolster Singapore's status as a global hub and, in turn, value-add to our community. Singapore may be physically limited but virtually unlimited.
Of course, digitalisation is not without risks. Cybersecurity is of concern.
Recent high-profile online scams underlie this concern. While these incidents were not caused by the Government's system vulnerabilities, the public's confidence in digital transactions with the Government may still, inadvertently, be affected. Moreover, such transactions with the Government often involve highly sensitive personal data.
Adding on, Singapore is now one of the two Asian countries that have condemned Russia's invasion of Ukraine and imposed sanctions.
This is a move that we must support but we could now also be an active cyber target. Hence, what is the Government doing to ensure that our critical infrastructures are robust and Government services are safe and secure for citizens and businesses to transact with?
Lastly, Smart Nation is meant to be a whole-of-nation movement. Therefore, it will require buy-in and active participation from all levels and segments of our society. Apart from ensuring that we solve real-life pain points using effective digital solutions that work, the processes, the interfaces, the entire user experience must also be thoughtful, clear and easy to use so that even the less digitally savvy among us will also be encouraged to transact and participate digitally. Therefore, what is the whole of Government doing to ensure seamless, user-friendly and age-friendly e-services for our people and businesses?
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Sharael Taha (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Chairman, Smart Nation requires transformation towards a digital Government, digital economy, digital society and living in a smart city. A Smart Nation must be more than technology for its own sake.
Given that it is in its fifth year, how has Smart Nation changed people's lives in Singapore in a real and tangible way and what more can we expect from Smart Nation? How can we use Smart Nation initiatives to showcase Singapore's capability to the world?
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Chairman, in spite of the greater use of smartphones and the evolution towards digitalisation, many, especially seniors, still prefer speaking to a physical individual at the end of a phone line as compared to a bot or an AI-inspired solution. A 2020 study supported by the National Medical Research Council showed that 78% of elderly respondents were uncomfortable with AI interpreting their medical data and providing automated advice.
This has to be seen within a wider backdrop of still relatively low Internet usership amongst the elderly. A 2019 IMDA survey showed that only 58% of seniors above 60 are Internet users as compared to 89% of the general population.
The Seniors Go Digital initiative that was launched in 2020 helps to provide seniors with basic Internet skills to access Government e-services. The recent spate of banking scams may have also had a psychological impact among some of our elderly with respect to the security of online or electronic services. Only last week, the Singapore Police Force said that a new Singpass QR code scam had surfaced, in which victims are asked to fill out surveys in exchange for monetary reward.
Greater public education can go some way to ameliorate these hazards but these scams or security loopholes raise the importance of the availability of alternative channels, such as the maintenance of reliable hotlines, to assure our seniors that access to Government services remain available to them even if they are not online or to seek clarifications promptly.
At the same time, occasional feedback still highlights the trouble people face in getting through Government hotlines. An example was in September 2021 when the SAF was roped in to help deal with calls to MOH as some COVID-19-positive Singaporeans could not secure conveyance to a recovery facility in time. Similar concerns were highlighted during the circuit breaker in 2020 when there was much confusion from businesses about the status of their foreign workers.
What lessons have been learnt from these episodes? And is there a plan to beef up tele-services in spite of this age of digitalisation for better citizen-to-state contact?
Mr Chairman: Ms Hany Soh. You can take both cuts together.
Ms Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Thank you, Chairman. Since the launch of Smart Nation, many apps and websites have been introduced by various agencies as well as businesses that have tapped on productivity grants. What is the progress of our Government’s Smart Nation Plan to create a more seamless and integrated user experience for our citizens and businesses?
As shared by Mr Yip Hon Weng in his Budget speech, these apps and websites sometimes offer overlapping services, bringing about inconvenience to users who have to install and navigate through many apps on their phones. For example, a senior who has been taught to book his medical appointment through the Health Hub app, was told when he arrived at the polyclinic that he will need to download another app to track his queue number for his appointment.
Another example is My Legacy portal, intended to be a one-stop platform to make estate planning easy and convenient. However, Singaporeans today still have to make their CPF nominations through the CPF website, do their Will and Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) through a lawyer and registering them thereafter through SAL’s Wills Registry and Office of Public Guardian (OPG) respectively.
How many users have since signed up through My Legacy vault to plan, store and share legal, healthcare and estate matters? Are there any plans for the relevant agencies from various Ministries to work together and further improve the portal, as well as to raise awareness among more Singaporeans to encourage them to consider doing comprehensive end-of-life planning?
Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): Mr Chairman, the pandemic has accelerated the pace and the scale of digitalisation, impacting the way we live, work and play. Increasingly, we find that to participate in common everyday activities, like accessing information, booking services, making an appointment, making payments, requires digital access and the skills to use digital technology. Even access to many Government services is digital.
At the launch of the Smart Nation Initiative in 2014, Minister Vivian Balakrishnan stressed the priority of Smart Nation as, I quote: \"Really, it is about people, it is not about technology for technology's sake. It is about focusing on jobs, quality of life and society\", unquote.
Seniors and persons with disabilities often struggle to access digital services. Digital inclusion is more than access and affordability; it is about having the skills and confidence to use technology. To make digital more inclusive, I believe that we must design digital services and content with the requirements of seniors and persons with disabilities at the centre.
This would make it more intuitive and reduce barriers to use digital services. And, more importantly, ensure that no one is left behind. Can the Minister share how we are promoting digital inclusion and bringing people with different needs along our Smart Nation journey?
Mr Chairman: Mr Alex Yam is not here. Assoc Prof Jamus Lim. My apologies. Response from Minister Josephine Teo before Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
The Minister for Communications and Information (Mrs Josephine Teo): Good afternoon, Mr Chairman. In the limited time available, I will try my best to address Members' concerns. With your permission, Sir, I will also be taking clarifications after my response.
Ms Tin Pei Ling and Mr Sharael Taha asked about the progress of our Smart Nation efforts. In fact, our Smart Nation is rapidly taking shape and there was no better evidence of this than during the height of the pandemic. Our children could not go to school, but learning did not stop. Many people could not go to their workplaces, but work and meetings continued. Cinemas and theatres were closed, but we were entertained online.
So much of our lives have gone digital. Some of the digital services we use regularly today were nascent only five years ago. Take the Singpass app, for example, which was only launched in 2018. Today, 3.5 million people use the Singpass app to gain access to over 1,700 digital and physical services. In 2021, more than 350 million personal and corporate transactions were facilitated via Singpass. Even then, Singpass continues to be improved. Soon, besides the digital IC, our digital driving licence will be accessible on Singpass.
Later this month, Singpass will also allow business owners or their authorised employees to conveniently retrieve basic company information, including awarded Government contracts and shareholders' names. This makes it easier for them to fulfil such information requests.
Members may also have noticed updates on the recent Budget announcements appearing in your Singpass app. Beyond that, there is an ongoing trial to send citizens personalised information on the Budget through the LifeSG app. This helps citizens know the support that is most relevant to them.
Our people can also check their eligibility for various schemes on the Support-Go-Where website. To date, we have used the Go-Where technology for 16 different purposes, allowing citizens to access key information more easily.
Digitalisation, however, is more than just moving from the physical to the virtual. The user experience matters, as highlighted by Ms Tin Pei Ling. And as Ms Hany Soh shared, it is also about unifying multiple touchpoints into a single service journey. For example, together with PSD and MOH, we have developed an online portal called My Legacy. The website guides citizens to settle the different components of end-of-life planning, such as lasting power of attorney, advanced care planning and CPF nominations. Information is consolidated in a single platform, enabling a more seamless experience. Some transactions must, however, take place through agency websites, to better protect the users.
Response to My Legacy has been positive. One hundred and forty thousand users have used the platform since its release in 2020. We will continue to improve the site and, indeed, other platforms, to achieve greater seamlessness while not compromising security.
Apart from citizens, digitalisation has also led to a sea change for our businesses. Guided by the Industry Transformation Maps (ITM), new business models, companies and jobs have emerged. Good jobs have been created for Singaporeans from product managers to algorithm engineers and UI/UX designers.
A new wave of entrepreneurs has taken centre stage, from home-based bakers to live streamers. These developments are very much in keeping with our Smart Nation vision, as outlined by Prime Minister Lee during his National Day Rally (NDR) speech in 2017, five years ago. Then, the Prime Minister said that, and I quote: \"Next time I am at a hawker centre, I look forward to paying for my meal with PayNow\". Today, more than half of all hawkers have adopted e-payments. In fact, more than $200 million in PayNow transactions were made every day last year.
Another familiar scheme is the CDC vouchers, which have benefited more than a million households and over 10,000 heartland merchants. What is less well known is that the digitalisation of vouchers and transaction tracking are enabled by RedeemSG, a system developed by GovTech that can be reused for similar voucher programmes.
Another tool is GovWallet, which helps the Government send monies and credits to citizens in a more secure and convenient way. MINDEF is using GovWallet to disburse NS recognition benefits through the LifeSG app. The benefits can be used at any of the 164,000 merchants that accept PayNow. CPF Board is also using GovWallet to disburse workfare payouts through ATMs. This replaces cheque disbursements and allows us to better serve the unbanked.
Our digital foundation has been instrumental to our whole-of-nation COVID-19 response and is constantly being strengthened. What has been most heartening are the contributions of our vibrant local tech sector. One example is Beep Technologies, a local company involved in the deployment of vending machines. Working with MTI, MOH, PA and GovTech, Beep has rolled out 1,600 vending machines islandwide. They have supported our nationwide distribution of 30 million masks, 1.3 million TraceTogether tokens and 2.5 million ART kits.
We may not have thought too much about what it takes to repurpose vending machines that are more used to dispensing drinks and other regular day-to-day items. And it was not an easy feat. To ensure that the TraceTogether tokens would not break upon being dispensed, Beep engineers used apple pies to test their customised machines. It took many tries before they could get satisfying results.
Beep's CEO, 25-year-old Kristoffer Jacek Soh, told me that he founded his company soon after he heard the Prime Minister's NDR speech in 2017 and was inspired. I hope more young people, like Jacek, will work with us to create our Smart Nation together.
Apart from our local tech sector, tech teams within the Government also played an important role in our COVID-19 response. Many of us have used our national vaccine appointment system. This was built by a small team of product managers, designers and software engineers, working closely with policymakers, clinicians and ground operators. They were given just two weeks to get the job done. Thanks to their efforts, many of us would have taken only minutes to complete our vaccination registration.
As we continue to strengthen our digital foundations, we must be ready to tackle challenges, such as digital inclusion and cybersecurity. In particular, we agree with Ms Jessica Tan that the fast pace of digitalisation can feel daunting, even for people who are willing to learn and try. Last year, we made a big move to help Singaporeans gain confidence with their digital forays. Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) launched the DigitalforLife movement. This is complemented by a community of 4,000 Smart Nation Ambassadors, who help our residents feel more comfortable using digital Government services.
Besides seniors, one of the groups where help has been focused, is, in fact, persons with disabilities. At the same time, we are also making digital services more accessible. For example, we have translated key Government digital services into more languages. Since last week, we have started to make Singpass app available in our four official languages. As more features are onboarded, this will better support citizens who are more comfortable transacting in vernacular languages.
Let me assure Members that we will always try to offer alternatives for those who are less comfortable with digital services or cannot access them. This includes telephone services, which Mr Pritam Singh mentioned. Even then, technology can help. For example, when cases spiked in September last year, there was a surge in calls to the COVID-19 emergency hotline. Within a week, our tech teams set up a call-handling and case management system. Through better information sharing capabilities, productivity of our call agents improved. The percentage of incoming calls that went unanswered dropped from 30% in mid-October to almost zero by the end of November.
Another top priority for us is cyber security, which Ms Tin Pei Ling also highlighted. I will speak more about this later during MCI's COS debate.
While we strengthen digital inclusion and cybersecurity, we must look ahead. As Mr Sharael Taha mentioned, there are many exciting opportunities to capture in the next bound of our Smart Nation journey. Even as we speak, the digital future of smart cities, sustainability, finance, education and healthcare is being reshaped. Technologies, like 5G and autonomous systems, will continue to mature and give us opportunity to reimagine our schools, hospitals, workplaces and even our heartlands.
There is much to explore in each of these areas. We will partner citizens in this process as part of our broader SG Together movement. The newly launched Citizen Co-Creation group will co-develop new solutions with our tech teams in areas, such as smart cities and digital inclusion.
Sir, on the whole, we have made good progress in our Smart Nation journey. For the third year running, Singapore has topped the IMD-SUTD Smart City Index in 2021. But we are always keenly aware that what matters most is the satisfaction of our people and businesses. For digital Government services, continuous efforts have raised citizen satisfaction from 73% in 2016 to 85% in 2021. Satisfaction among businesses has also risen from 64% to 76%.
In today's era of hyper-innovation, every milestone represents just a new beginning. To stay ahead, we must never stop building new capabilities and never stop seizing new opportunities.
Our Smart Nation is still rapidly taking shape. Through sustained commitment and efforts, we will continue to transform Singaporeans' lives for the better.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Sir, MAS has already expended significant effort and resources to better understand the nature, function and practical operations surrounding the possibility of a digital currency issued by our central bank. Based on public documents issued by the Economic Policy Group, the conclusion is – to somewhat over-simplify – that Singapore is ready for a digital Sing dollar. However, there is no, and I quote, \"pressing need for its issuance at this time.\"
MAS has documented a host of advantages associated with, ultimately, adopting a digital Sing dollar. But there are several advantages to moving earlier on issuance.
First, doing so could help crowd out alternative, volatile digital private currencies, especially low-value meme cryptocurrencies that have been an outlet for speculated access.
Second, a digital Sing dollar will allow for the application of more innovative monetary policy, especially with regard to disinflation. While inflation is the current worry, it is not difficult to conceive, with global depopulation, deglobalisation and declining productivity, of the possibility of a reversal to a low-inflation environment a few years down the road. It would take a few years to roll out the digital currency, making it available to help mitigate the problem of a zero lower bound on nominal interest rates.
Third, a digital Sing dollar, especially one that is trackable by MAS, will help reduce the incidence of counterfeiting and being used for illicit activities, especially given that the largest denomination bill that MAS still mints is still relatively large at $1,000. That said, there are some additional practical concerns for which it will be useful for this House to better understand.
First, to what extent has global best practices in payments innovation, such as those studies in collaboration between the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston and MIT's Project Hamilton Digital Currency initiative, been incorporated into the MAS' own background study? Second, what are the main inhibitions that MAS holds that prevent sooner issuance? And third, if there is no urgent need for issuance, what might be the anticipated timeline for a digital Sing dollar?
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Sir, I have, increasingly, been approached for assistance by residents who face problems opening personal bank accounts. Their applications were rejected by banks either because of their past criminal records, past investigations for financial-related crimes or are currently under criminal investigation, resulting in their bank accounts being frozen.
Members of this House would agree that access to basic banking facilities is essential in today's digitalised society. These individuals are deprived of basic banking activities, such as receiving their salaries. Employers do not usually agree to deposit into their family's bank accounts and are unwilling to pay them in cash. They also have difficulty receiving Government cash benefits, like GST Vouchers – Cash. Individuals with past criminal records have paid their dues to society and such a deprivation can be an impediment in their efforts to turn over a new leaf.
Similarly, individuals under investigation are deprived of the operation of the maxim \"innocent until proven guilty\". These investigations can take any time between several months and years, which are a long time to function without access to basic banking facilities. I understand MAS has been working with the larger retail banks to open limited purpose bank accounts for individuals that banks assess to pose a higher risk of being implicated in financial crimes.
Can I ask the Minister what are the limitations on such accounts? Will the functions of such accounts vary on a case-by-case basis assessment by the banks? Additionally, will the pool of eligible individuals for these accounts include persons who are currently under investigation? This may emerge as a growing problem owing to the increase in bank accounts being frozen during investigations into financial crimes.
Owing to the time sensitivity of this matter, can I ask the Minister what is the progress of the roll-out of these limited purpose bank accounts? Is it generally available to all affected applicants yet? If not, when will it remain available generally?
The Chairman: Minister Lawrence Wong.
The Minister for Finance (Mr Lawrence Wong): Mr Chairman, I thank Assoc Prof Jamus Lim for his interest and comments on a digital Singapore dollar.
MAS has been among the central banks at the forefront of experiments with central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), especially wholesale CBDCs, starting over five years ago. It has been actively engaged in the international discourse on CBDCs among policymakers, industry and academia.
At this point, MAS has assessed that the case for a retail CBDC in Singapore is not compelling. Several other central banks have taken the same view for now, such as the US Federal Reserve, Bank of Canada and the Reserve Bank of Australia. The reasons typically offered for issuing retail CBDCs are not very relevant to MAS and Singapore at this juncture.
Some of the reasons usually offered are that CBDCs can ensure financial inclusion or enable cheaper and faster payments. Financial inclusion is not a significant problem in Singapore. And electronic payments in Singapore have also become pervasive, seamless and efficient.
The roll-out of FAST, PayNow and SGQR in recent years means that cheap and fast payments are widely available domestically via bank-based payment systems. And we are also linking up this infrastructure with those abroad, which will open up more cross-border electronic payment solutions over time.
Government transfers are disbursed efficiently through digital means, including through the last two years of the COVID-19 crisis.
And the payments system is becoming even more innovative and competitive, as more payments service providers are being admitted through the Payment Services Act and the new digital banks begin operating.
In short, we are using improvements in payment technology and competition to achieve our objectives of cheap and fast payments for all, using existing forms of central bank-backed money.
This does not mean that MAS has ruled out introducing a retail CBDC at some stage. The case for a CBDC could strengthen if foreign digital currencies become more widely used locally, although we are far away from that situation today. Innovative CBDC applications may also make them more attractive.
MAS, therefore, continues to build up its technological and institutional capabilities in the CBDC space. MAS has embarked on Project Orchid to build the technical competencies necessary to issue a digital Singapore dollar, should we decide to do so in future. It also organised a Global CBDC Challenge last year to surface innovative technology solutions.
Issuing a retail CBDC will not be a minor decision. There are important risks and uncertainties that come with creating a new form of money. MAS has set these out clearly in a paper that it published on the topic in November 2021. A digital Singapore dollar must be secure and robust once it is implemented. The banking system needs to be able to adapt to its introduction, and monetary and financial stability cannot be compromised. This is a complex undertaking and careful practical experimentation alongside industry players will be necessary, if we do decide to proceed with a retail CBDC at some stage.
Overall, MAS will continue to prepare for the possibility of issuing a digital Singapore dollar, but does not see an immediate case for doing so.
On the second cut by Mr Gerald Giam, last year, MAS engaged the major retail banks on initiatives to enhance financial inclusion for ex-offenders. And since January this year, the banks have been offering, as part of a pilot exercise, limited purpose bank accounts to persons whom banks have assessed may pose higher risks of being implicated in financial crimes. These include ex-offenders and those under investigations or pending charges for financial crimes.
The pilot exercise will allow banks a chance to obtain feedback and refine the product before the accounts are officially launched in the second half of this year.
The functionalities and safeguards for limited purpose bank accounts are designed to enable individuals to meet their basic banking needs, like receiving salaries and paying bills. To mitigate risks of abuse, the accounts are subjected to enhanced monitoring measures. For example, banks will check that individuals are only receiving funds from specified sources which had been agreed upon at account-opening, including salary payments from employers, Government disbursements and insurance payouts. These functionalities and safeguards will be adjusted, as necessary, after the current pilot.
The limited purpose bank accounts will address the needs of most ex-offenders and persons under investigations or facing charges. However, there may be a small number of individuals whom banks have assessed to pose unacceptable risks. For example, this might include individuals who have committed serious crimes involving the violation of targeted financial sanctions.
MAS will continue to work with the Singapore Police Force on further ways to enable financial inclusion for individuals who have been involved in financial crimes, while ensuring that the risks are properly managed.
The Chairman: Ms Ng Ling Ling.
Ms Ng Ling Ling (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Chairman, our Total Fertility Rate (TFR) at 1.10 and number of marriages at 19,430 in 2020 were at their lowest points for the decade. While the number of marriages showed signs of returning to pre-pandemic levels, having children remains a hesitation in many young Singaporeans' minds.
In a Youth Survey conducted by TODAY newspaper with 1,066 respondents between the ages of 18 and 34 published in November 2021, only about half of the unmarried respondents felt that marriage was important and less than half said it was important or very important to have a child in the future. They cited cost of living, stressful education system and lack of quality time as their top concerns.
How can we build cultural norms and an environment that are more family-friendly in Singapore? I believe we need to tackle three interdependent fronts together for family centricity – at home, at work and in the society.
In 2021, 46% of employed residents in Singapore were working from home due to the COVID-19 situation. Such flexible remote working arrangements have provided a space for more parents to spend more time with their children while still attending to work. While there are, certainly, those who had to cope with more childcare and work burdens, many residents shared with me that it has given them a chance to make adjustments and see their children more.
In fact, flexible work practices and family-friendly workplaces were highlighted as one of the key themes that emerged from \"Building a Singapore that is Made-for-Families\" in the Emerging Stronger Conversations. As a society, we also begin to appreciate that the flexible work arrangements can be a reality, with adjustments to expectations and mindsets during this pandemic.
I would like to ask how NPTD can work with a wider group of stakeholders to further normalise such family-centric work balance mindset and working models for the longer-term population benefits of Singapore.
The Chairman: Prof Hoon Hian Teck. Not here. Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I would take my next two cuts together.
The Chairman: Yes, please.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: I know I sound like a broken record as here I am again asking for the Government to provide childcare sick leave. Why? Working parents need this, especially during this pandemic. Our frontline and essential workers and those who cannot work from home need this, especially during this pandemic.
The Government does not disagree with me when it comes to childcare sick leave. The Public Service already gives officers childcare sick leave and it is on a per-child basis. Civil servants are using this childcare sick leave. If the Government feels that childcare sick leave is important for the people who work for us, then why is it not important for the people we serve? Let us level that playing field.
Let us also not use flexible work arrangements to justify not providing childcare sick leave. If this reason is true, then why do civil servants who have flexible work arrangements also have childcare sick leave?
Will the Government consider providing childcare sick leave for all working parents on a per-child basis? I have raised this issue many times and I hope the reply would not be the same again.
Paternity leave is important for our nation. An NUS study found that children whose fathers take paternity leave are significantly less likely to have behavioural issues. The study also found that these families have less internal conflict, lower likelihood of maternal depression, more marital satisfaction and more father-child closeness. The case for paternity leave cannot be stronger.
However, the study also found that fathers in more labour-intensive jobs, such as machine operators and cleaners, were half as likely to take paternity leave as fathers working as legislators, senior officials and managers. We need to do more to help lower-income fathers take their paternity leave. Why should they be denied the time to spend with their babies?
Can the Government conduct a targeted study on the barriers to taking paternity leave for lower-income workers, look into policies to increase their usage of paternity leave and also look into incentivising employers who support their employees to take their paternity leave?
The Chairman: Mr Gan Thiam Poh is not here. Ms Foo Mee Har.
Ms Foo Mee Har (West Coast): Mr Chairman, more than 60% of those surveyed in the Institute of Policy Studies online polls revealed their concerns over an increased suspicion among people of different social backgrounds as a result of COVID-19.
Even though bigoted behaviour seen in public and hateful online comments may be limited to only a small section of our society, such acts of denigration are, unfortunately, magnified on social media.
Our foreign friends feel the brunt of xenophobia keenly. Some have left due to border restrictions, whilst others are considering their options, for fear of growing nativism in Singapore society.
Xenophobic acts threaten our multicultural way of life that we fought hard to foster. Close to a third of the workforce in Singapore is made up of foreigners from different corners of the world, to sustain our economic and caregiving activities, complementing our local force.
We, ourselves, began as an immigrant society and our forefathers came from different backgrounds, settling down in Singapore and calling it home.
I would like to ask the Minister what are our plans to integrate foreigners and to quash xenophobic sentiments that might hurt Singapore's reputation as an open, diverse and inclusive society.
The Chairman: Ms Indranee Rajah.
The Minister, Prime Minister's Office (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Chairman, I thank Members for their cuts.
Family is a key source of strength and support, especially in tough times. The pandemic has underscored this. As such, supporting Singaporeans who want to start and raise families remains the Government's top priority.
I will speak about three Government strategies to build a more resilient population in Singapore. First, building a Singapore that is Made For Families. Second, moderating the impact of low birth rates and ageing through selective immigration. Third, strengthening our local workforce and complementing it with a foreign workforce, to grow opportunities for Singaporeans.
First, we continue to support Singaporeans who wish to start and expand their families. Mr Gan Thiam Poh had filed a cut about our strategies to encourage Singaporeans to get married and have children, given our low Total Fertility Rate (TFR). The preliminary number of resident births in 2021 remained similar to 2020, at around 34,200. While this was 3% lower than in 2019 before COVID-19 struck, the fall was less than we had feared. Our TFR was 1.12 last year, a slight recovery from the historic low of 1.10 in 2020. But it remains lower than the pre-COVID-19 period.
TFR is a measure of births per female of child-bearing age. While the number of births remained similar, the number of such females decreased over the same period, hence, TFR increased.
Raising birth rates is key to tackling Singapore's long-term demographic challenges. At the same time, getting married and having children are personal decisions. We know that aspirations for Marriage and Parenthood (M&P) remain high. We will redouble our efforts to support Singaporeans who choose to get married and have children. From our 2021 M&P survey, eight in 10 young singles aspire to get married and have children, and over nine in 10 married Singaporeans want at least two children.
Strong and stable families are the bedrock of our society. We are committed to fostering a supportive environment for them. We held the Emerging Stronger Conversations last year. Over 300 participants gave suggestions on how to better support families.
In the Conversations, which Miss Cheng Li Hui had asked about in her cut, some young couples shared their concerns about having children during a pandemic. To reassure couples to proceed with their parenthood plans, we introduced the one-off Baby Support Grant. Parents of over 44,000 babies have received the grant.
One such couple is Danial and Syaqilah, who got engaged, married and had their first child all within two years. They initially planned to have their first child only after moving into their Build-to-Order (BTO) flat. However, they decided to go ahead as there was no perfect time to have a baby. Baby Isa was born in August 2021 and they were glad that the Baby Support Grant helped with their transition into parenthood. Danial and Syaqilah showed us that COVID-19 need not discourage us from making important life plans.
Other couples highlighted concerns about housing and the BTO pipeline, as many aspire to have their own home before they start families. Miss Cheng Li Hui filed a cut on how the Government can support such couples to access affordable housing, amidst disruptions due to COVID-19.
We are pushing hard to complete our BTO projects as planned. For ongoing BTO projects, most flat buyers will be able to move into their new homes within four to five years after booking their flats, barring further unforeseen circumstances. We will also launch up to 23,000 new BTO flats per year in 2022 and 2023 as MND has indicated.
Couples waiting for their BTO flats to be completed can rent a flat at highly subsidised rates under HDB's Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (PPHS). To better meet demand, HDB is ramping up the supply of PPHS flats with 800 additional units.
With more people marrying later, fertility health will become more of an issue and must be taken seriously. In the Conversations, couples with fertility issues spoke about their challenges. We must continue to support and encourage them. This includes encouraging couples to understand and address potential fertility issues earlier, and workplaces to be more supportive.
We will also introduce new funding support for certain types of Pre-implantation Genetic Testing for Singaporean couples to address the concerns that some couples have over genetically-transmitted diseases. We will share more details at a later time.
To give every child a good start in life, we will continue to invest heavily in promoting good health and education from the early years. We will further support the physical, mental and cognitive well-being of children and their families. The Child and Maternal Health and Well-Being Taskforce is developing a five-year national strategy to address this. Minister Masagos Zulkifli will provide more details during MOH's COS.
We are continuing to make quality preschools more affordable and accessible. Today, a working couple earning $8,000 per month pays $280 per month when they send their child for full-day childcare at an Anchor Operator preschool. This is 40% lower than the $470 per month they had to pay before preschool subsidies were enhanced in 2020. Lower-income working families pay as low as $3 a month at such preschools. By around 2025, eight in 10 preschoolers can have a place in a quality, affordable Government-supported preschool.
The Government is currently reviewing our measures to improve the M&P journey. Mr Louis Ng suggested incentivising employers to increase usage of paternity leave, particularly among lower-income workers and providing childcare sick leave for all working parents.
I fully agree that parents need more flexibility and time away from work to care for their children. Our research on the experiences of fathers' use of paternity leave shows that, across different types of jobs and companies, a key factor affecting the level of utilisation is workplace support. This includes whether supervisors are supportive of fathers taking leave and whether colleagues are willing to cover their duties.
In some labour-intensive jobs, employers may be less willing to let fathers go on extended leave due to the challenge of finding covering arrangements. In such situations, employers could exercise more flexibility in fathers' utilisation of paternity leave, such as taking the leave in more than one period within their child's first year, to minimise disruptions to business operations.
We will consider Mr Louis Ng's feedback, continue to review the scope for more parental leave provisions and work with employers to encourage their utilisation.
However, supporting the caregiving needs of parents must be balanced with the manpower and operational needs of employers, particularly our Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs), some of which may still be grappling with the effects of the pandemic. Instead of legislating more childcare leave, the Government aims to lead by example and encourage employers to follow suit by exercising more flexibility and extending childcare leave where possible.
This brings me to my broader point. To address the pressure of managing work and parenting commitments, we have to go beyond Government policies. We need to come together as a whole of society to build a more family-friendly Singapore for a more sustainable approach.
As Ms Ng Ling Ling pointed out, a pro-family workplace culture is important. Around the world, the pandemic has prompted many to rethink where, how and why we work.
The US has experienced the \"Great Resignation\" – a phenomenon in which scores of employees have quit their jobs as they rethink priorities and search for better working conditions or more fulfilling careers. While we have not had a \"Great Resignation\", there are clear indications that Singaporeans are paying more attention to whether employers support work-life balance. Recent surveys suggest that workers in Singapore value employers who enable them to manage both their career and family commitments.
Ms Ng Ling Ling said that mindsets must change, I agree. Prof Hoon Hian Teck also filed a cut about work-from-home arrangements to bolster family life. Adopting flexible work arrangements and prioritising employee well-being are not only good for workers and, consequently, for families; in the post-pandemic world, these are going to be the key to firms' competitiveness, productivity and ability to recruit and retain talent.
Let me say something about flexible work arrangements (FWAs). I want to emphasise that there is a distinction between FWAs and work-from-home (WFH). People often use these terms interchangeably, but they are not the same.
WFH is only one type of FWAs. Not all job types are suitable for WFH, but all job types can accommodate some form of FWA, depending on the nature of the job. Other forms of FWAs include flexi-time and flexi-load arrangements. Every organisation, big or small, can consider adopting the FWAs that best suit their employees' needs and their business operations.
An example is Singtel. Pre-pandemic, Singtel already provided their employees FWA options, such as telecommuting, flexi-time and part-time work. Singtel also offers \"Flexi Family Leave\" – five days of leave for birthdays, childcare, adoption and family emergencies.
With new work practices thrust upon us by the pandemic, we now have a window of opportunity to make FWAs a norm. We will be working with employers to do so, and more will be shared in the White Paper on Singapore Women's Development which will be tabled in Parliament later this year.
We, ultimately, require the partnership of the wider community to build a Singapore that is Made For Families.
We launched the Made For Families brand mark in June 2020 to assure families of support from the Government and community. To date, more than 90 businesses, organisations and community groups have adopted it and we hope more will take action and join us. Together, we will support and celebrate all families at every stage of their journey. Minister Masagos Zulkifli will share more details on our plans for the year ahead.
Next, I will touch on moderating the impact of low birth rates and ageing through selective immigration.
I spoke about our low birth rates. At the same time, our population continues to age, which has implications for our workforce and society.
This brings me to the second strategy. To moderate the impact of low birth rates and ageing, we take in a carefully controlled number of new citizens and Permanent Residents each year. We are selective about who we grant Permanent Residency (PR) and, subsequently, citizenship to.
Many of our new immigrants share family ties with Singaporeans while others have studied, worked or lived here for some time. In 2021, we granted about 21,500 new citizenships, including about 1,200 citizenships to children born overseas to Singaporean parents. We also granted about 33,400 new PRs. These numbers are similar to pre-COVID-19 levels and higher, when compared to 2020, due to the easing of travel restrictions and safe management measures, which previously slowed down in-person processes for the grant of citizenship or PR.
During last year’s Committee of Supply (COS), I said that a few thousand applicants who were approved in-principle in 2020 had not completed all the required processes to be granted PR or citizenship. These applicants were, subsequently, granted PR or citizenship, adding to the numbers granted in 2021.
Nonetheless, the total number of Singapore Citizenships (SCs) granted in 2021 remains slightly lower than pre-COVID-19 levels, as those granted SCs must first renounce their foreign citizenship. In some cases, this continues to take longer than usual due to COVID-19 related measures. We will continue to ensure that our immigration policy remains relevant to our needs and keeps the pace of immigration measured and stable.
Our third strategy is to remain fully committed to supporting Singaporeans to seize new opportunities at various stages of their careers.
At the same time, we do not have sufficient local manpower to meet the needs of businesses. To generate the quality and range of jobs to meet Singaporeans’ aspirations, we need a diverse pool of foreign manpower to complement our local workforce. We must remain open towards complementary talent from overseas who bring valuable skills, networks and expertise. They can contribute to the development of emerging sectors where we need more time to grow local capabilities. As our economic needs evolve, we must ensure the right balance and complementarity between local and foreign manpower. Minister Tan See Leng will be providing more details during MOM’s COS.
We have people from all over the world joining us. Many of them contribute to Singapore and some have come to regard Singapore as their home, adding to our diversity. We are proud of our diversity in Singapore, which is bound by a strong sense of community. In many other societies, COVID-19 has further widened social and economic divides. We have also seen greater occurrences of xenophobic sentiments and behaviours around the world. As Ms Foo Mee Har has emphasised, we must guard against such sentiments and continue to strengthen our ties with one another. This is especially important for Singapore as a multi-cultural society.
Let me touch on how we are strengthening social integration and cohesion in Singapore.
Fostering social integration and cohesion requires a whole-of-society effort. As individuals, each of us has a part to play. Let us be inclusive, patient and help newcomers to adapt to local norms. Similarly, foreigners here should make the effort to adapt and integrate over time. We have also worked with partners on initiatives to help foreigners settle in and understand local norms and culture.
For example, MOM’s OneWorkplace.sg initiative provides employers with tools and resources to identify workplace integration gaps and implement team-bonding programmes and Corporate Social Responsibility activities. Another example is how we worked with Singaporeans as part of the Citizen’s Workgroup for the Singapore Citizenship Journey (SC Journey) to explore, discuss and create content to update the SC Journey for our new citizens. The SC Journey will include the co-created content for newcomers to better learn and appreciate aspects of life in Singapore.
Ultimately, we recognise that integration may take some time. We must cherish the unity in diversity that Singapore has, which has helped everyone to rally together. We will press on to build a more inclusive and brighter future for Singaporeans.
With many Singaporeans still aspiring to start and raise families, we will continue to build a Singapore that is Made For Families. We will also continue to review our population strategies to ensure that they remain relevant to our needs. Together, we will build a more resilient population and keep Singaporeans fully at the heart of our population strategies.
The Chairman: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): In this Budget, we are looking for ways to cut costs. The most effective way to cut costs is to streamline the Government structure. We should ensure that the money is applied efficiently.
For each social purpose, there should be only one channel or platform. The People's Association (PA), with its $908 million budget, comes to mind. Community engagement and citizens' welfare are very important, but they are separately served by MCCY and MSF, with budgets of $107 million and $611 million respectively. PA is more like a political structure, led by political appointees and volunteers. Thus, it is not clear whether it is serving the purpose, the people or the ruling party. If it is not political, to avoid duplicating resources, we should either integrate PA into MCCY or put all community engagement activities at MCCY into PA.
We should turn our community engagement into asset-light activities and stop incurring huge development expenditures on building new community centres. For FY2022, another $197 million is budgeted for such development. Instead, we should free up the land and resources tied up in the community centres and other facilities and reallocate those resources to other social needs.
We can also potentially do more with the same dollar if we reorganise some activities among MOE, MOM and MSF. The $679 million earmarked for SkillsFuture should be taken out of MOE and integrated into MOM to ensure that the spending creates jobs for Singaporeans. SkillsFuture courses that do not result in better jobs should be dropped. The $1.6 billion earmarked for Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) can be taken out of MSF and integrated into MOE, to create a seamless education and development curriculum for our children.
Finally, the original MSF minus ECDA should be reorganised into a new ministry called the Ministry of Resilient Citizens (MRC), with the transfer of the $1.7 billion financial security programme from MOM to it. The MRC will focus on strengthening our social and financial compact, and oversee social and family development, scholarship and bursary programmes, CPF, a national healthcare scheme, a new unemployment insurance and lifelong fulfilment programmes for the benefit of Singaporeans.
Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry (Kebun Baru): Mr Chairman, the onset of COVID-19 shows the benefits of digital service delivery, which allows citizens to be served despite the need to avoid physical interactions. However, there is a significant group of citizens who may find it challenging to transact with the Government using digital platforms. For these citizens, who can also include those in low-income households, they may have added difficulties in navigating Government services.
Can PSD share what are the key efforts made by the Public Service to better integrate services, with citizens and businesses at the centre? How does the Public Service ensure that those who are digitally less-savvy are not left behind as the Public Service digitalises to its core?
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Digital transformation has accelerated as Singaporeans learned to connect with others, including hawkers and retailers, from their homes in this pandemic. Many of my residents, including senior citizens, now interact with me over online Meet-the-People sessions and livestreamed constituency events.
Technology is important as a touchpoint between the Government and citizens. The high and increasing figures in the Annual Survey on Satisfaction with Government Digital Services are commendable. It is also heartening to see that 97% of citizens and 95% of businesses were satisfied with the digital solutions rolled out by the Government during the pandemic.
However, there are still many opportunities to tap on. The centralisation of functions on a single platform – like the Singpass and TraceTogether Apps – is helpful and should be further developed. If we can seamlessly integrate the services from different Government agencies using a single platform and a common pool of citizens’ data, we can utilise AI to better anticipate individual citizens' needs and push services to those who may not be aware of schemes applicable to them.
Meanwhile, episodes involving the private sector have demonstrated the risks that we need to manage while going digital. The compromise of personal access details through scams, service outages due to backend technical issues, and data breaches are something we need to look out for.
Finally, another gap in our digitalisation efforts is that it appears to be focused on the English language and too little on vernacular languages. How does the Public Service intend to leverage technology to deliver its services better and faster to citizens, or to improve its own productivity?
Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Mr Chairman, in my Budget debate speech, I highlighted how COVID-19 has accelerated the Work from Anywhere trend and how this has spawned a trending culture of \"workcations\" and countries chasing to attract digital nomads.
To ensure that our public officers can continue to respond decisively to global developments, they will need to remain adaptable through constant upskilling and new experiences, so that they can serve Singapore more effectively through this period of significant global shifts.
What are PSD’s plans to ensure that our public officers of today will be ready to take on the challenges of tomorrow? How will the Government support their growth and career development?
To continually attract the best Singaporean talents to serve Singapore, our Public Service will need to evolve in line with global trends. Will the Public Service hire Singaporean digital nomads based overseas? Will we allow our Public Service officers to go on a year-long workcation?
As our workforce ages and we gradually extend our statutory retirement and re-employment ages, it will be increasingly important for us to also extend the lifelong employability of our Public Service officers. Can the Minister provide an update on the efforts on this front? We should strive towards a future where officers can have two, or even three fulfilling careers in the whole of Public Service.
Lastly, I note with concern that our Public Service is experiencing an unusual rise in attrition, with the resignation rate in the Management Executive scheme reaching a 10-year high of 9.9% in 2021. Could stress be a cause of this? If so, what is PSD doing to alleviate burnout in the service?
The Chairman: Minister Chan Chun Sing.
The Minister for Education (Mr Chan Chun Sing): Chairman, let me first thank the various Members for their useful suggestions and concerns for the Public Service. I would also like to thank all my public officers for all the hard work that they have done over the last two years, in particular. I am sure Members of the House will agree with me that, over the last two years, the Public Service has really pulled together to do three things concurrently and to do three things well.
First, to maintain our current operations to make sure that all our services to our people and our country continue to run smoothly amidst the crisis.
Second, to run crisis operations, we had to invent on the fly many of the new things that we had to do to cope with the ever-evolving virus situation. To this end, we had to even cross-deploy officers to new roles. In fact, a few thousand officers from the Public Service have been cross-deployed to different positions beyond their previous normal duties in order to help out and manage the crisis and they continue to do this even as we speak.
Third, our public officers continue to plan for the future. That, notwithstanding the crisis and the current operations, we established those conditions for us to emerge stronger and to distinguish ourselves.
For all these reasons of running the three – current operations, crisis operations and future operations – I would like to thank all my public officers for all the hard work and determination.
Mr Chairman, we have heard various suggestions on how the Public Service can do better. Indeed, we agree with the Members that we not rest on our laurels.
The Public Service is always looking for better ways to make sure that we can use our finite resources and manpower. Perhaps, I would just like to give some examples of how the Public Service has done over the last few years.
The first example of how we have tried to do better and use our resources more efficiently is from GovTech. The GoWhere platform supports our location- and eligibility-based queries. As part of our COVID-19 response, the Public Service agencies use GoWhere as a channel to provide citizens with the locations of key services, starting with the collection of masks via Mask GoWhere in 2020. Since then, we have expanded to cover 16 Government initiatives today, including the recent CDC Vouchers Merchants GoWhere.
Another example is our establishment of the Centres of Excellence, or what we called CentExs, by leveraging on the agencies with critical science, technology and engineering experience to build deep technical expertise and pool specialised resources across the Public Service. For example, JTC is designated as the Centre of Excellence (CentExs) for facilities management and is progressively consolidating the facility management contracts for public sector-owned buildings under one integrated contract. JTC also provides its expertise to guide the various agencies on how to structure those contracts in order for us to get value-for-money.
A third example would be how we are bringing together more services under our Integrated Public Service Centres, or what we called ServiceSG Centres now, which has integrated and delivered a wide range of public services across different agencies under one roof. Since 2018, the Centre at Our Tampines Hub has expanded to provide 400 services across 19 agencies for our citizens. Citizens can now also conduct video conferences with officers from different agencies in one place. Going forward, we will extend the pilot to establish more ServiceSG Centres within Community Centres (CCs). The first of two such ServiceSG Centres have opened in Nee Soon Central and Kampong Chai Chee CCs.
Likewise, for businesses, we have developed the one-stop GoBusiness portal to provide easy-to-use, seamless and relevant services, as well as create a more pro-business environment. Developed by MTI and the Smart Nation and Digital Government Group (SNDGG), GoBusiness allows users to access information of over 300 Government-to-Business e-services. This year, business owners can expect a new GoBusiness dashboard that will allow them to track their licence applications and access various e-Advisers for recommendations on grants and other services.
On Mr Melvin Yong's point about developing the competencies of our public officers, that is, indeed, one of our focuses going forward, especially when our public officers have a longer career working lifespan. There are various things that we intend to do for our public officers for their career development, in order to build up their capabilities. We intend to have greater porosity among the public sector, people and private sectors. But within the public sector itself, we also intend to have greater porosity among different agencies. Let me explain how we intend to do this.
The Talent Attachment Programme (TAP) has been expanded. In fact, over the last year, we have almost doubled the number of people who have gone on a Talent Attachment Programme (TAP). These are programmes that allow our public officers to be attached to organisations outside the Public Service, so that they can establish the connections, bring back new ideas for us in the Public Service. We will continue to look for more opportunities for this porosity of exchanges, so that we can get the best ideas from the public sector, the people sector and elsewhere beyond the Public Service, including international organisations.
Within the public sector itself, we also want to make sure our officers – even if they are performing the same function in different agencies – get opportunities to be posted across to different agencies because, even within the same functional areas, no two agencies perform the function in exactly the same way and we can, of course, learn from one another.
Beyond this, we want to make sure that as we go forward in the way we govern, we will work closely and closer with the organisations beyond the public sector. We want to broaden our connections with the organisations beyond the public sector. We want to tap on their capacities and capabilities. And this is how we are also executing our plans to manage COVID-19.
Therefore, starting from this year, we will allow each public officer to use up to 40 hours a year to participate in developmental activities with the private, social and non-profit organisations. And why do we do this?
We do this for a very simple reason. We want our public officers to, first, deeply understand the partners that they are working with so that when they make the rules and regulations, they have a deep understanding of the people and organisations that they are serving.
The second reason for us to do this is because we want our public officers to make sure that they continue to learn from the sectors and organisations beyond the Public Service, and bring back new ideas, bring back new connections, to enrich the Public Service.
Last but not least, in a crisis like COVID-19, what we have demonstrated is that we depend not just on the whole-of-Government capacity. In fact, we depend on the whole-of-nation capacity when our public officers have to go forth and make the adjustments for the crisis management operations. They bring in organisations, volunteers beyond the Public Service and that helps to add to our Public Service capacities and capabilities. And that is why, to this end, I want to further this connection between the Public Service and the sector and organisations beyond the Public Service. That is why, from this year onwards, every public officer will be able to use up to 40 hours a year to participate in developmental activities with the private, social and non-profit organisations. These opportunities can be made available by the Public Service Division and other agencies, or self-sourced opportunities, as long as the activities are developmental and do not lead to any conflict of interests.
On Mr Leong Mun Wai's point to streamline the Government organisations, perhaps, I would like to let Mr Leong Mun Wai know that, indeed, we have already done many of the things that he suggested. Where it is logical, we bring services and facilities together. Good examples of this include the Heartbeat@Bedok and Our Tampines Hub. Where it is logical and saves us money and resources, we bring different agencies under one roof so that we can save money for our country and save manpower.
On the other hand, we also have an asset-light model. For example, in the new generation of CCs, like the one in Potong Pasir and the upcoming Woodleigh development, we have integrated the CCs with the commercial developments so that we can operate with an asset-light model.
But a more important point that Mr Leong Mun Wai asked is: what is the purpose of the People's Association (PA)? The role of the PA is to help us build up our social capital in peacetime. It serves the government of the day. For example, during the COVID-19 crisis, where did we get the extra capacity to reach out to do our vaccination operations, to distribute the masks, to distribute the sanitisers? Where did we get the people to go and reach out to the people who are in isolation in their homes? We did not depend just on the PA staff. There are only about 2,000 PA staff but there are many volunteers that we mobilised to come together. Without these capabilities and capacities, I am not sure that we will be able to achieve the various things that we have been able to achieve during our crisis operations to manage the ongoing COVID-19 situation.
So, for these two years, what we have built up, assiduously, over peacetime – these social bonds, this trust, this deep network – to help our people and reach out, have been invaluable to Singapore. And that is not something that many other countries have because perhaps, many other countries take it for granted that the social bonds will be there.
In fact, Mr Leong Mun Wai might also like to know that PA works very closely with MCCY. In fact, the CED of PA works very closely with the Permanent Secretary of MCCY – their budgets come together.
On Mr Leong Mun Wai's suggestions about having the MOE work with MSF seamlessly, I would also like to inform Mr Leong that I have been involved in this effort on both sides. Why is ECDA an agency that is reporting to both MOE and MSF? Because ECDA performs the role of taking care of the preschool children with both the education component by MOE and the care component by MSF. This is how we flexibly configure our organisations in order to meet the needs of our people. So, it is not a \"stove-pipe\" mindset that we adopt, going into how we structure an organisation.
But having said that, we will be the first to admit that, as circumstances change and evolve, we will continue to evolve our organisations and structures to best meet today's needs and also to anticipate tomorrow's challenges and we will continue to do this.
Let me, finally, say this. I will be the first one to say that the Public Service is not perfect. We are constantly guarding against complacency and we constantly want to do better for Singapore and Singaporeans. We will never be complacent. We will constantly check our blind spots, take in the best ideas from within this Chamber, from the Public Service itself and from people and organisations beyond the Public Service. Because our goal is to make sure that we have a Public Service that Singaporeans can be proud of and that can do justice to the potential of Singapore and Singaporeans. We will continue to work on that basis to adjust and adapt flexibly according to the circumstances.
On that note, I would like to thank all the Members for your various suggestions. If you have other suggestions on how we can do better as a Public Service, we welcome your suggestions and we will certainly look into them.
The Chairman: Clarifications, please. Ms Tin Pei Ling.
Ms Tin Pei Ling: Thank you, Mr Chairman, and thank you, Minister, for the update. It is good to know that there have been good progress and achievements.
Given the advancement of technology, as we move into Web 3.0, as preferences and habits change amongst our people and business models as well, and, with new use cases, I would like to ask whether there has been any update on the vision of our Smart Nation initiative. Also, would e-residency be already on the agenda?
Mrs Josephine Teo: Mr Chairman, Smart Nation is in its fifth year and it is undergoing a review so that we can also chart the next bound. This review, the results of it, we will be able to update Members at a later date and I would leave it till then.
Ms Tin Pei Ling had asked the question of e-residency. This is not necessarily a question for SNDGG to address. MHA oversees immigration matters, MOM oversees work passes for foreign nationals. Nevertheless, let me share some of my own observations about e-residency.
I think it is not clear what the benefits and obligations are for the e-residents. If it is merely to work or to provide services without being physically here, actually, for Singapore, that is already happening and there are no impediments. If it is to enter Singapore freely, for example, not to have the same kind of restrictions for visas and so on, again, Singapore's openness makes it quite questionable what this e-residency confers in terms of additional benefits. If it is then to offer access to things like healthcare or other services that residents enjoy, we have to ask the question what obligations the e-residents should be expected to fulfil. Are the potential e-residents asking to pay taxes in Singapore? Are the e-residents saying that they agree to be bound by Singapore's laws? And in any case, if they are not in Singapore, how would those obligations be enforceable? That is from the e-resident's perspective.
Then, to the question of the benefits to Singapore of offering such e-residency. Of course, for Singapore-based companies, one could make the argument that they can access the talents, a much wider pool, which they can already today. Then, having allowed these e-residents to earn income from Singapore and yet the e-residents will not have the opportunity to consume in Singapore, the benefits become much more questionable.
I will just say, at this point in time, that there is no clarity about what this design of the e-residency should involve and what benefits and obligations it should confer.
The Chairman: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: Thank you, Sir. I thank the Minister for the response and I am glad it is a different reply. But can I just focus my clarification on low-income parents who, very often, cannot work-from-home or they have different kinds of FWAs. I agree with the Minister, I hope that employers can be more supportive. But I think we know, from the NUS study, this is not happening on the ground. So, could I ask the Government, specifically for low-income parents, what are we doing to help them to have some time off when their child is sick or, at least, when their child is born?
Ms Indranee Rajah: I thank the Member for his clarification, I would not want him to think I was giving him the same old answer every time.
As far as low-income workers and employees are concerned, they, too, are on our radar. They are parents, just like others, and we would want to make sure that they have sufficient time to look after their children. So, let us study this together with MOM. Whatever we do must be something that is practical and feasible, given the nature of their work. Because, very often, they do have to be there, physically present. And then the question is whether or not the employer has got other people to cover for them if they take time off.
So, I think what the Member can take away today is that they are on our radar and, just like any other parent, we would want them to have sufficient time with their children.
The Chairman: Ms Tin Pei Ling, would you like to withdraw the amendment?
Ms Tin Pei Ling: Chairman, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
[(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $1,088,926,800 for Head U ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $303,116,100 for Head U ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Committee of Supply – Head M (Ministry of Finance)","subTitle":"Good governance","sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): Mr Chairman, I beg to move, \"That the total sum to be allocated for Head M of the Estimates be reduced by $100\".
Sir, the COVID-19 pandemic has led to the largest public spending intervention in the history of Singapore. Over a series of Budgets in FY2020 and FY2021, the Government had spent close to $100 billion, or almost 20% of GDP, in economic and social support as well as public health management measures.
Many of these support measures were implemented in a compressed timeline due to the urgency of the situation as well as to achieve timely impact.
Now that the pandemic has entered a more stabilised phase, can I ask if MOF would be reviewing whether the public spending has been effective in achieving its intended outcomes? Have the controls and governance procedures been adjusted or waived due to the exigency of the situation?
Are there valuable lessons to learn as to how the Public Service can better manage future crises? How can we be more agile and nimble and how can we achieve better outcomes with the same or less resources?
Sir, the Job Support Scheme (JSS) and the Rental Support Scheme (RSS) have been the lifeline for many companies and workers in the depth of the pandemic crisis. Without these two schemes, we could have lost capabilities in some sectors of our economy and suffered severe economic scarring.
While the economic outlook has improved this year, barring the situation in Eastern Europe, there are still businesses that are directly impacted by the pandemic, such as the tourism and hospitality sectors.
I understand that the construction sector is also facing challenges of labour crunch, high material and energy costs and snowballing delays among their subcontractors. Can I ask if the Government will continue to assist these businesses in 2022? Are there other targeted support and assistance that we can render these companies?
Cash flow is important, especially to small businesses. Whenever there are major event risks, especially, or uncertainties, cash liquidity and credit tend to tighten. If the interest rates are to rise, as some have forecasted, it could worsen the liquidity situation. Can I ask if the Government and its purchasing agencies have a policy of paying its vendors in a timely manner? In fact, in an economically stressed situation, would the Government be even more proactive in making payments to the vendors?
Sir, the Government is a major buyer of goods and services in the domestic market, some of which are of high operational importance. I would like to take this opportunity to ask if the Government’s suppliers have also been impacted by the global supply chain disruption, such as delays and cost increase challenges? And how can the Government help these suppliers during this difficult period?
Sir, Budget 2022 stepped up focuses to build a fairer tax structure, uplift our lower-wage workers and transit to a low-carbon society. These are major shifts for businesses and the public to manage, adjust and cope with. It is a whole-of-society effort and also a whole-of-economy undertaking. How and what can MOF agencies, as well as the whole-of-Government do more to help and support businesses and the public in this whole transition?
For example, in the area of procurement, will the Public Service now have new features in the tender specifications to require vendors or suppliers to achieve the Progressive Wage Mark or to adopt sustainable practices?
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Ms Foo Mee Har (West Coast): Mr Chairman, to cope with the health and economic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, governments around the world had mobilised massive fiscal policy responses totalling US$14 trillion at end-2020. Singapore is no exception.
The pandemic’s impact on our people made disbursement of funds a top priority, so that citizens and businesses could receive urgent help when it was needed. But we cannot ignore the importance of accountability and governance of public expenditures, in order to ensure that resources are effectively allocated and properly accounted for.
Research carried out by the International Budget Partnership involving 120 countries, found that more than two-thirds of governments had limited or minimal levels of accountability in the introduction and implementation of their early fiscal policy responses.
Most recently, the UK government had come under scrutiny for fraud and error in the country’s COVID-19 support programmes, which are expected to cost the British taxpayers over £15 billion. Similarly, in the US, fraud or improper payments are likely to account for more than US$90 billion of the government’s emergency pandemic aid for the unemployed and small businesses. Here, in Singapore, we have had also to deal with 57 reports of fraud involving some $1.7 million of COVID-19 grants.
I would like to ask the Minister what controls and governance procedures were put in place by Government agencies, even as they responded quickly to evolving COVID-19 circumstances.
Given the significant COVID-19-related spending, I would like to call on the Government to subject key COVID-19 expenditures to ex-post analytics and audit checks.
In addition, a special audit by the Auditor-General may be warranted to assess procurement processes, including cost reasonableness, taking into consideration the unique market conditions at that time as well as the regularity of transactions.
Lastly, the Government drew lower amounts of past reserves for both FY2020 and FY2021 than originally planned. What lessons can be drawn on the effectiveness and impact of our response to this crisis that can be applied to our management of future ones?
Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Before we raise taxes, we should consider whether there are expenditures we can cut. However, it is not easy to understand the expenditure in the Budget. Hence, I have the following questions.
Can the Minister present the $100 billion COVID-19 spending in the same format as the Budget, with detailed breakdown by spending category and by Ministry and explain where is the $5 billion annual spending on R&D? Where is it reflected in the Budget and where and how is the allocation approved? Explain how the SINGA loans and investments are being treated in the Budget and the Government's statement of assets and liabilities. What does the $2.4 billion recorded as capitalisation of nationally significant infrastructure for FY2022 meet?
Finally, on revenues. Can the Minister confirm that the Government has reported total financial assets of $1.4 trillion as at 31 March 2021 and that MAS has accumulated close to $200 billion of new reserves in the last two years and all these financial assets are now producing more than $40 billion in net investment returns per year?
Ms Hazel Poa (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Chairman, I echo the call by the Workers' Party to exempt basic essentials from GST. To prevent the rich from also benefiting from such exemptions, we can set the price threshold. NTUC FairPrice house-brand rice sells for $1.40 per kilogram. We can, therefore, exempt rice that sells for, say, under $2 per kilogram from GST. This way, we prevent luxury goods from being included in the exemption.
The Finance Minister said that additional cost would be incurred for having multi-tiered GST. Can the Finance Minister let us know how much cost is involved here? If we believe that, in principle, basic necessities should be exempted to help the lower-income households, then, as Minister Vivian Balakrishnan said two days ago when talking about the Ukraine war, we must be prepared to pay the cost for what we believe in.
Also, what does the Finance Minister expect the GST rate to be in 2030? Can the Finance Minister also share with us how much the effective corporate tax rate would have to be raised by to generate the same revenue as a 2% hike in GST? The Finance Minister said earlier in his round-up speech that my example on land sales is simplistic because land sales will not stay stagnant every year. I wish to clarify that this is only an assumption made for the purpose of simplifying the illustration of the revenue stream. Varying land sales each year would result in a varying revenue stream but would, in no way, invalidate the model. I am sure the Finance Minister is able to extrapolate from that illustration what are the variations that would result from a varying land sale.
Singapore will not be pressured to sell more land in order to generate more revenue in bad times. This is because the revenue for each year is the accumulation of land sales over many years in the past and the latest year's land sale would have a small impact on the revenue. For example, suppose Year 10 is a recessionary year and land sale is only $50 instead of $100, then revenue generated from the land sale in Year 10 is $2.50 instead of $5. However, revenue from previous years' land sales remains unchanged so that the total revenue for the year is $47.5 instead of $50. A 50% drop in land sale proceeds results in only a 5% drop in revenue because it is cushioned by the land sales in earlier years. Conversely, any attempt to sell more land in any particular year would also have limited impact on the revenue for the year since it is spread out over many years. It is, therefore, a rather stable revenue stream.
Lastly, can I seek confirmation from the Finance Minister that under the current arrangement of HDB buying land from SLA, that the same piece of land acquired at low cost by the Government in the past will be sold repeatedly to HDB at the prevailing land price? By \"repeatedly\", I mean when the lease ends. And does the same apply to JTC with respect to industrial land?
Mr Sharael Taha (Pasir Ris-Punggol): (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Our social and healthcare needs will increase while the resources required to support it will be increasingly limited. What are the alternative options being considered other than GST that can generate the same revenue to finance the recurrent costs of healthcare and social services?
Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap (Aljunied): I am dismayed that the Government will be going ahead with the rise in GST.
My main concern is with the impact on the lower-income households. I note the Government’s explanation that assistance will be provided to this segment of society via various schemes. Nonetheless, I believe any additional cost-cutting measures will be much appreciated by our low-income families.
Sir, if I may cite one example, the application of GST on water tariffs, which already incorporates a Water Conservation Tax (WCT). I recall that when Mr Low Thia Khiang raised this issue, the Government had explained that the GST and WCT served different purposes and that applying a value-added tax on water tariffs was standard practice elsewhere.
Sir, we should consider if standard practices are helpful before adopting them. We are already taxing our citizens on their water usage via WCT. Is there really a need to perform a double taxation on them with the GST as well?
I believe Members can agree that there is still a substantial number of low-income Singaporeans, especially those living in HDB’s public rental flats, who are struggling with their utility bills even though they are being assisted with U-Save rebates. WCT’s amount may seem negligible to many but, to low-income families, every cent and dollar counts.
Sir, if the Government disagrees with the call to abolish GST on WCT, can the Government seriously, at least, consider exempting GST on WCT for Singaporeans who are residing in HDB’s public rental flats?
Ms Yeo Wan Ling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Despite sluggish demand brought on by the pandemic, our taxi and ride hail ground have told us that their business costs have risen considerably over the past 24 months. While all eyes are fixed on the recent escalating fuel prices caused by the war in Ukraine, our drivers have been standing stoic in facing fuel price revisions of at least 18 times in the past 14 months. In the words of our National Taxi Association President, Brother Raymond Ong, “It is really frightening”. Other cost items that have gone up significantly, some as much as 20%, include the cost of car washes, parking, ERP, signalling a permanent change in their business cost structures.
While our drivers appreciate the need for GST increases, our ground has also brought up concerns that they are not GST agents and, undoubtedly, the impending rise will impact their business costs and livelihoods. As such, I would like to call for the Ministry to reassess the current expense ratio in calculating our drivers’ taxable incomes and to ask the Ministry for support to be specifically given to our taxi and ride hail drivers in the upcoming GST increase.
Ms Foo Mee Har: Mr Chairman, Singapore’s infrastructure development and public administration have been pivotal to Singapore’s economic transformation from a Third-World to a First-World country in the last half a century.
Yet, as the Prime Minister said, “We will never be done building Singapore.” Members will remember that we passed a Bill in Parliament last year that allows the Government to undertake up to $90 billion of infrastructure developments through borrowing. This is to fund new rail lines, water and sewerage infrastructure as well as coastal protection measures against rising sea levels.
Experts have highlighted that some of the most significant risks in infrastructure projects lie in scoping, design and cost management as well as project management. A report by the Project Management Institute estimates that poor project management costs an average of 12.7% of total budgets. If applied to the $90 billion of infrastructure projects in the pipeline, we could potentially waste $11.4 billion.
Just last year, the Auditor-General's Office reported lapses in the People’s Association’s development projects. Their checks revealed lapses in adjustments for price fluctuations, a lack of assurance in quantities used for projects, and weaknesses in management of contract variations.
So, I would like to ask the Minister what governance framework is in place to manage the risks associated with the upcoming infrastructure projects, including supply chain disruptions, in the post-COVID-19 era? How does the Government ensure that spending on infrastructure projects consistently offers Singapore value-for-money and is optimised on a lifecycle basis?
Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong (Jurong): Infrastructure and construction technology has made substantial progress over the last decade and continues to do so. Construction methods, aided by better technology and materials, can improve built costs as well as increase their useable lifespan. In certain circumstances, a higher initial capital outlay may result in lowering operating costs, which, in turn, contribute to a lower lifecycle cost.
As such, how does the Government ensure that our expenditure will deliver us the best value over its entire lifecycle?
Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Chairman, Sir, I will speak on three areas.
Firstly, with regard to the procurement strategy for infrastructure, how does the Ministry plan to continue to ensure spending on infrastructure projects is value for money and optimised on a life-cycle basis? For example, one aspect that could be looked at is spending on better materials which will ensure better quality and longer lasting infrastructure; and technologies which will ensure better maintenance productivity, allowing workers to focus on higher value works. These workers can be retrained in new skillsets that lead to higher productivity and wages. The initial capital outlay may be higher, but the lower operating cost can compensate for that.
Secondly, are there specific capital expenditure items that can be converted to operating expenditure items? For example, an ACMV system can be a contract for service to the Government instead of capital purchase of the full system. Such changes in procurement strategy can, potentially, create more opportunities for market-based green project financing.
Thirdly, it is heartening that the Government continues to support companies that are impacted by the pandemic. One question I have is how the Ministry ensures that businesses continue to receive timely and targeted support? For instance, as disruptions in the global supply chain persist, businesses continue to face stresses, such as delays and cash flow challenges in their operations. Hence, to this question, I have a few further clarifications to make.
How has the Government, as a major buyer of goods and services, supported its suppliers and service contractors during this challenging period? Are there any means the Government can ensure it assesses main contractors’ swiftness of payment to its subcontractors and such assessment of its quality as a paymaster be a key consideration in the procurement contract assessment? What is the mechanism in place to make such an assessment?
Ultimately, we want to ensure that companies receive timely payments to aid their cash flow.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Chairman, businesses have suffered reduced earnings, increased business costs and cash flow difficulties as revenue became unpredictable due to COVID-19.
Added to this are the global supply chain disruptions which COVID-19 has brought about. In various countries like China, COVID-19 lockdowns and labour disruptions meant that goods which could be shipped in about two weeks’ time could now take three times longer. COVID-19 outbreaks on container vessels increased freight times as these vessels were either turned away from ports or subjected to quarantine and other measures. We recently had our own episode around the Chinese New Year period where COVID-19 cases amongst SATS staff led to severe delays in cargo processing at Changi Airport.
As a major buyer of goods and services itself, how has the Government supported its suppliers during this challenging period? Beyond attempting to settle the supplier’s invoice earlier than what payment terms provide for, how has the Government exercised flexibility and demonstrated solidarity with its suppliers, especially local SMEs?
The Chairman: Ms Mariam Jaafar; not here. Ms Jessica Tan.
Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): Mr Chairman, as Singapore emerges from the COVID-19 pandemic, Singapore must become stronger economically and socially. Singapore is well-positioned to become a key carbon service hub. This can generate new opportunities to create new businesses and jobs in Singapore. To do this, Singapore will need a coordinated approach and effort to support the transition of businesses to become more sustainable and to take advantage of the opportunities presented. Policy, infrastructure, connections, know-how, innovations and support are needed for businesses to participate and make the transition to a more sustainable future. What initiatives are MOF and its agencies driving to enhance Singapore's business ecosystem to help our businesses, especially SMEs, innovate, access and build the capabilities to participate in these new green opportunities and skills?
A business ecosystem to support environmental sustainability and inclusive growth will not only help grow our businesses and create good jobs but will improve the environment. This benefits the health and quality of life for Singaporeans and protects our environment for future generations.
Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong: To establish a conducive business ecosystem, it is important to ensure that the regulatory and compliance costs are not prohibitive and are adequate to ensure a reliable and robust system. Above all, these processes must be streamlined and avoid duplicative steps; it must be agile. As such, what are some of the measures or programmes initiated by MOF to ensure that we continuously improve the efficiency of our business processes?
Mr Chairman: Minister Indranee Rajah.
The Second Minister for Finance (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Chairman, I thank the Members for their questions and comments for MOF. Members' cuts cover four broad topics: first, accountability and governance in our expenditure; second, goods and services tax and other revenue sources; third, support for businesses to overcome COVID-19 disruptions; and last, how we will position our business ecosystem for the future. I will address these topics in turn.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa and Ms Foo Mee Har asked how we strengthen accountability and governance for our spending. We have established governance and monitoring structures to ensure proper accountability for the use of public resources and strengthen performance for programmes. The independent, regular and thorough audits by the Auditor-General's Office (AGO) are reported publicly and complemented by Ministries' internal audits as well as their programme evaluation efforts, to ensure that spending translates into good outcomes.
Ministries are also putting in place enterprise risk management frameworks, which will be reviewed at regular intervals by MOF. Dedicated function officers have also been set up in MOF to strengthen whole-of-Government processes and capabilities in finance, procurement and grant management.
These offices also coordinate across agencies to achieve greater efficiencies and savings in respective functions. Members of the public have also provided feedback directly to Government agencies on how we can obtain better value from public expenditure. Key Government priorities are monitored regularly and reported in the Annual Budget Book and the biennial Singapore Public Sector Outcomes Review (SPOR) report. The SPOR report was revamped in 2020 to go fully digital and improve accessibility for readers. The content is presented in a more citizen- and business-centric manner, with greater emphasis on outcomes. It highlights the impact on citizens and businesses, such as the fact that one can now start a business within 1.5 days.
Two weeks ago, we published an updated assessment on the impact of key COVID-19 measures, such as the Jobs Support Scheme (JSS) and the SGUnited Jobs and Skills Package. The findings show how the Singapore economy has largely avoided medium-term scarring from COVID-19 and is poised to continue its recovery.
Ms Foo Mee Har asked about the controls and governance for COVID-19-related schemes. Indeed, as we rolled out COVID-19 schemes quickly, we struck a balance between keeping processes simple and putting in place controls to prevent abuse or errors.
For the JSS, a risk assessment is done and, for cases with higher fraud risk, the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) requires firms to authenticate their CPF contributions before releasing payouts. IRAS has denied payments to employers who attempt to abuse the scheme and referred cases to the Police for investigation. As of last week, 14 cases have been referred to the Police.
Despite these efforts, given the unprecedented complexity and the need for urgent disbursement across the board through JSS, there were some mistakes, which are deeply regretted. When such an instance was discovered, we took immediate efforts to rectify them. Out of the $370 million JSS overpayment discovered earlier, we have recovered over 99% and are working on recovering the rest.
Ms Foo Mee Har, Mr Shawn Huang and Mr Edward Chia asked how we ensure value-for-money in major infrastructure projects. Before the Government embarks on a project, MOF reviews the project objectives and business case. For example, at the initial stage, we examine the cost-benefit analysis and consider synergies across projects or other opportunities to optimise resources. As the plans develop, MOF works with the development agencies to determine the development approach, design and risk, and use evaluation tools, such as life cycle costing, to optimise costs across the infrastructure lifespan.
Mr Edward Chia suggested that we consider buying certain infrastructure or systems as a service. Indeed, we are open to such options, which is why life-cycle costing is an important tool to assess different options holistically. For the evaluation of larger and more complex projects, we have benefited from the advice of the Development Projects Advisory Panel, which comprises technical experts from the private sector and academia.
Of the projects submitted for approval last year, MOF managed to achieve cost savings of about $600 million or 4% of a capital cost of $14.4 billion. But as I have said, we do not just focus on reducing upfront construction costs. By working with agencies on design optimisation and system choices, we seek to reduce total life-cycle costs, which include downstream operating costs. As an example, for the Cross Island Line (CRL), LTA is using a different traction power supply system that enables more efficient power transmission. This reduces total energy usage and the number of substations required. This is expected to result in life-cycle cost savings of about $280 million.
MOF also works with development agencies to maintain strong accountability and controls for the management of major infrastructure projects. For instance, to better manage infrastructure project risks, we are consolidating the management of such projects under agencies with stronger expertise. JTC Corporation, with its deep experience in construction, has helped 28 agencies manage 50 construction projects, worth $9 billion.
Mr Sharael Taha's cut asked how much revenue the two-percentage point increase in GST would raise and how much goes towards the offset packages. At a GST rate of 9%, we expect to collect an additional 0.7% of GDP per year, currently estimated to be about $3.5 billion. This is less than the projected increase in healthcare spending, which could amount to over one-percentage point of GDP by 2030.
At the same time, the enhanced permanent GST Voucher scheme will cost about $500 million more per year in FY 2023, compared to today. There is a clear social purpose in this way of doing things. The additional $3.5 billion is collected from all, including the rich, foreigners and tourists. The GST Voucher scheme benefits the lower- to middle-income Singaporean households, including most retiree households. This is one of the ways we make our system of taxes and transfers a fair and progressive one.
Members would remember the chart shown by the Minister for Finance, when we take into account the GSTV and the GST absorbed by the Government. We, indeed, have tiered GST rates. But we achieve this not by exempting certain goods or services for all customers, but by our uniquely Singaporean way of implementing GST with GSTV.
Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked how we can help private hire car drivers pass on the cost of GST to their commuters. The taxi operators and private hire car platform owners decide on fares. They may choose to raise fares from time to time, to cover the increase in operating costs and all taxi operators have recently done so. The 60% Fixed Expense Deduction Ratio (FEDR) is set at a level to cover most of the common deductible expenses incurred by drivers in earning their income.
In setting the FEDR, we need to strike a balance between simplifying tax compliance and ensuring that it is realistic. The current 60% ratio remains sufficient for the vast majority of drivers. For those whose actual deductible expenses exceed the 60% ratio, they continue to have the option to file their tax returns based on the actual expenses incurred. We will continue to monitor the situation.
Let me now address questions from Mr Liang Eng Hwa, Mr Edward Chia and Mr Saktiandi Supaat, on how the Government can continue to support companies impacted by the pandemic and provide timely and targeted support.
The pandemic continues to disrupt global supply chains and business activities. Ports and airports around the world today remain affected by pandemic-related restrictions and manpower constraints, resulting in delays and higher transport costs for our businesses. We are aware of the pressures on our businesses and the challenges they face. The Government has, therefore, continued to provide support to alleviate the impact of the pandemic and made adjustments to changing circumstances.
We will continue to monitor the situation going into 2022 and adjust our measures as necessary.
For example, JSS was first designed as a broad-based wage support scheme to help employers retain their local employees when we first began our fight against COVID-19 in 2020. Payouts were tiered to broadly reflect the different levels of impact on different sectors. As we went into 2021, some sectors recovered ahead of others. Some of our safe management measures had a greater impact on certain sectors, such as construction, F&B, retail, gyms and fitness studios. So, we targeted the JSS to help the sectors most impacted by COVID-19 measures.
Similarly, we acted fast to change the disbursement mode of rental relief from requiring landlords to grant rental waivers, to giving direct payouts to tenants under the Rental Support Scheme (RSS). Beyond providing targeted support, we have invested efforts to enhance the JSS and RSS disbursement process, to make timely payments to employers and eligible tenants and owners. We have disbursed more than $28 billion of JSS to about 180,000 employers expeditiously, with the most recent tranche being disbursed within two months from the announcement of the extended support for businesses most adversely affected by COVID-19 restrictions.
This was possible as 90% of these businesses were registered under PayNow Corporate or had existing GIRO arrangements with IRAS. IRAS combined the data it had across various tax types to auto disburse the RSS payouts directly to more than 80% of eligible tenants and owner-occupants. More than 110,000 payouts, worth almost $1 billion, were disbursed automatically within two months from the announcement of the scheme. This was the first time the Government gave direct disbursements to tenants and we received positive feedback that the disbursements were fast and effortless.
We will continue to invest in capabilities for business grant disbursements, so that our assistance can reach businesses promptly.
As Mr Liang Eng Hwa and Mr Edward Chia have observed, our businesses appreciate prompt payment. MOF has worked on providing faster payments to our suppliers. To ease our suppliers' cash flows, we pay our vendors faster by streamlining the procure-to-pay process from procurement, to goods receipt and payment.
As at end January 2020, about 97% of e-invoices below $5,000 were paid within 12 days, ahead of the usual credit term of 30 days. This benefited nearly 9,000 suppliers, mostly SMEs.
To further ease suppliers' cash flows, we are working with MTI to allow auto-approval for factoring of certain Government contracts later this year, so that our suppliers can have more financing options.
We are also aware of the challenges faced by Government construction contractors. The pandemic continues to impact the productivity on-site, supply chain and manpower availability, leading to delays and cost increases. The Government has taken a proactive stance to shoulder part of the cost increases. This aims to soften the impact of productivity loss from requirements, such as safe management measures on-site and shortage of foreign manpower due to border controls.
When the pandemic first broke out in 2020, we made advanced payments, worth $665 million, for over 450 public sector construction contracts, to help contractors tide over work stoppages. We also provided support of more than $230 million by co-sharing costs. These include the costs of prolongation, increased manpower costs and consultancy services. These measures, including support for manpower costs through JSS and foreign worker levy waivers and rebates, have helped our construction suppliers through the crisis.
On Mr Edward Chia's suggestion to assess main contractors payment promptness to subcontractors in our tender evaluation, it is not easy for a service buyer to verify or monitor the private business practices of its contractors. In general, if a contractor does not treat its subcontractor well, we expect few subcontractors would be keen to work with it.
Where such market forces have not worked so well, the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act provides legal recourse for subcontractors affected by late or no payment.
Ms Foo Mee Har asked whether a select group of companies enjoyed outsized windfalls from the COVID-19 support schemes and how these companies can contribute back for the common good. The initial impetus for schemes like JSS was to provide timely cash flow support to businesses to protect our local workers. We then adjusted our approach to exclude those sectors, such as supermarkets, which were doing very well. But to finely target by the fortunes of individual businesses would not be possible.
When businesses flourish or do exceptionally well, they pay more Corporate Income Tax. Their workers who receive bonuses also pay taxes, including GST. Such additional revenue can then be channelled to fund Government programmes. Some businesses have also taken the initiative to contribute to the community in various ways through their corporate social responsibility activities, which is commendable.
For example, DFI Retail Group ramped up efforts to donate food and healthcare essentials to the needy through a food donation drive through the group’s grocery stores Cold Storage and Giant, while FairPrice pledged in January 2022 to donate $1.2 million to 600 families over three years to help low-income families cope with higher costs of living.
Moving from businesses to families, let me address Ms Mariam Jaafar’s question of how we reach out to vulnerable individuals and families without their own homes when many support measures are tied to the household or housing type. Government assistance is prioritised for families with less means and in greater need of social support. In means-testing for our social schemes, housing type is one of the proxies we use to estimate an individual’s means. We also look at other factors, such as income and number of members in the household. A person living in a higher value property or larger housing type is, in general, more likely to have access to resources or support through the family. Where there are exceptional circumstances, I encourage our Members of Parliament and community leaders to bring these cases to the attention of the relevant agencies so that their circumstances can be holistically assessed. I would like to assure Ms Mariam Jaafar that we will do our best to extend help to the vulnerable and needy who lack other forms of support.
Let me now address the questions from Mr Liang Eng Hwa, Ms Jessica Tan and Mr Shawn Huang on how MOF is strengthening the business ecosystem, to position it for future shifts. I will elaborate on how we are stepping up our efforts in two areas.
First, we will strengthen Singapore as a trusted, open and effective business hub. We will continue to enhance our corporate governance regime to combat money laundering, terrorism financing and other threats to the integrity of the international financial system. This includes aligning ourselves with international standards, such as those under the intergovernmental Financial Action Task Force.
For example, in January this year, Parliament passed the Corporate Registers (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill to strengthen Singapore’s regime on the transparency and beneficial ownership of companies and Limited Liability Partnerships. ACRA is pivoting towards more risk-targeted supervision for the Registered Filing Agents sector by using data analytics to identify higher-risk agents. It is also studying proposals to further enhance our anti-money laundering regime. We will consult the public on these proposals later in the year.
Apart from our work to combat money laundering, we are also strengthening Singapore’s position as a global Intellectual Property (IP) hub, as well as a fund management hub by ensuring that the regulatory framework keeps pace with business needs.
Second, we will work with businesses to improve the efficiency of processes, such as tax filing, payments and trade.
For tax filing, IRAS collaborates with software developers and other Government agencies to develop solutions to help businesses to meet their tax and other regulatory requirements. Businesses which adopt software listed on IRAS’ new Accounting Software Register Plus can now seamlessly submit their tax returns and transact with their business partners on the InvoiceNow network. Since its launch in October 2021, about 30 software developers have onboarded or expressed interest to onboard the register.
For payments, IRAS introduced PayNow for corporate income tax (CIT) refunds last year, so that businesses can enjoy fast, secure and seamless e-refunds. Taxpayers would be updated by their banks when the refunds have been credited into their bank accounts. Today, all businesses that are due to receive CIT refunds from IRAS can choose between GIRO and PayNow to receive their refunds.
For trade processes, Singapore Customs has digitalised banker’s guarantees for traders through the Networked Trade Platform (NTP). Traders do not need to physically collect and submit paper guarantees, as participating banks can send e-guarantees data to Customs securely through the NTP. Close to 200 traders lodged e-guarantees with Customs last year, saving three hours and $30 for each e-guarantee. Almost 90% of all guarantees issued by the six participating banks last year were e-guarantees.
I am heartened that Mr Liang Eng Hwa and Ms Jessica Tan have asked about our initiatives to enhance our business ecosystem to support environmental sustainability and inclusive growth. The Government has been playing its part as a socially-responsible and environmentally-conscious buyer and encourages businesses to do the same.
The Government will require eligible suppliers to be accredited with the Progressive Wage Mark from March 2023, to support our lower-wage workers. Today, our suppliers for security, cleaning, lift maintenance and landscaping are already required to pay progressive wages. Along with the expansion of the Progressive Wage Model, the requirement for suppliers to attain the Progressive Wage Mark will be extended to the retail, food services and waste management sectors, and suppliers with in-house cleaners, security officers, landscape workers, administrators and drivers. MOM will share more on progressive wages in their COS.
We have been incorporating sustainability requirements in our tenders. For example, all new Government buildings and premises undergoing major renovations are required to meet stringent Green Mark standards under the GreenGov.SG initiative. We have also been buying green products, such as printing paper, that are accredited with the Singapore Green Label. The latest demand aggregation tender for vehicle hiring services includes hybrid vehicles as part of the requirements and incorporates clauses to provide for electric vehicles when they become more prevalent in future. We will continue to expand the list of buys where green requirements are incorporated.
We also consider the sustainability credentials of suppliers during the evaluation for Government tenders. In construction, the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) requires contractors to adopt environmental management practices before they can be registered to undertake building or civil engineering works. In addition, agencies like LTA and JTC have included environmental sustainability criteria in their construction tenders that give extra points to suppliers that have adopted green practices or obtained green awards. The consideration of sustainability credentials will be extended to the procurement of more categories of goods and services and was recently piloted in tenders for public waste collection and accommodation and event venues.
To enable the transition towards sustainability, the Government has been supporting businesses in going green and welcomes businesses to make use of the support available. This includes schemes, such as Enterprise Singapore’s Enterprise Sustainability Programme, the Economic Development Board’s Resource Efficiency Grant for Energy and the National Environment Agency’s Energy Efficiency Fund.
Under the Enterprise Sustainability Programme, the Government shares the risk with banks in lending to businesses to develop innovative green technologies and solutions, such as in clean energy and the circular economy.
BCA has also introduced various Green Mark Incentive Schemes to encourage the adoption of environmentally-friendly building technologies and building design practices.
Let me turn now to Mr Faisal Manap's cut. He asked if we could abolish GST on the Water Conservation Tax (WCT). This is not a new suggestion. The Workers' Party had asked this before and the Government had explained it previously.
The WCT is how we have been able to make our water supply more resilient. With the threat of climate change, water resilience is more important than ever. The WCT reflects the fact that water is precious and encourages every individual and business to play a role in conserving our water resources. The water tariff and WCT together form the final price of water, reflecting the economic cost of producing water from our desalination and NEWater plants. GST is then levied on this final price, inclusive of taxes and duties that are related to the supply of goods or services. This approach is consistent with the practice in other jurisdictions, such as the UK, Australia and New Zealand.
At the future 9% GST, the amount of GST payable on the water conservation tax each month is around 90 cents for 3-room and 4-room HDB households, on average, and less than 60 cents for one-room and two-room households.
If I may understand Mr Faisal Manap's concern, it is really for the lower-income households and the fact that they would have to pay GST on the water conservation tax. The first point I would make is that the amount is low. But, more importantly, with the U-Save rebates and vouchers that have been given, these households will, actually, be able to cover their utilities bills. So, they need not worry and Mr Faisal Manap should reassure his residents that, with the U-Save rebates that are given from the Government, they will be well taken care of by this Government. In fact, when you add the U-Save rebates from the Household Support Package together with the Assurance Package, it will come up to about eight to 10 months' worth of utilities bills, and this is not taking into account the permanent GST Voucher scheme, which also has a U-Save component.
So, please, I would encourage Mr Faisal Manap to visit the MOF website. The infographics are there, setting out the various archetypes. Please print them and please distribute them freely to your residents, especially to the lower-income households, and reassure them that this Government will take care of them as far as that is concerned and they need not be worried about the water conservation tax, or the GST thereon.
Ms Hazel Poa had a couple of questions. She asked about essential goods. Her question was about the additional costs that would be incurred. Her question was premised on, if we believe that basic necessities should be exempt, what should be done about this. I just would like to point out to Ms Hazel Poa that the underlying premise of her question was, if we believe that basic necessities should be exempt. And there is a philosophical difference between what PSP believes and what this Government believes.
The Government does not believe that basic essentials should be exempt. What we do is we apply GST across the board for everybody, but we ensure that the lower-income are buffered against this and the middle-income also receive a certain amount of benefits, so they get some buffer as well.
The Minister for Finance had earlier shown that for every dollar of tax paid, the lower-income get back $4 to the dollar, and the middle-income get back $2 to the dollar. So, I do not think that it would be very helpful to go into the details of the question because it is premised on assuming an approach to basic necessities that we have a fundamental difference on.
The same would apply to her question on land sales. I think she had an elaborate example, but going into the details or discussing the minutiae or the technical details of that is not really going to take us much further. Fundamentally, our approach is this: land is a national asset, think of it as an endowment. In its physical form, it is an asset, it has a value. If you sell it, it gets converted into cash, but we put it back into the reserves. Some of it comes back in the form of the NIRC. Selling it and stretching it out over 10 years, 30 years, 99 years, fundamentally, is still a departure from the principle that we adhere to.
So, all I would say here is that it was comprehensively answered by the Finance Minister earlier and I do not think it is necessary for me to elaborate further on this.
Mr Leong Mun Wai had a question on how we account for large expenditures. In the Budget Book, the Government's expenditure is classified by Ministries and broken down into object classes based on the nature of the spending.
This is to allow the public to understand the major categories of Government spending, such as Expenditure on Manpower, Other Operating Expenditure, Grants and Transfers.
So, if he looks into the Budget Book for examples of COVID-19 spending, at page 55, under MSF's operating expenditure, there will be a reference to the extension of the COVID-19 Recovery Grant. If he looks at a different Ministry, let us, say, MOF, page 95, he will see that, under the fifth paragraph, there is a reference there to COVID-19.
What I am trying to illustrate is that, for accountability purposes, it is set out according to Heads of Expenditure, that is the various Ministries. Within the various Heads, if you are looking for a particular large expenditure like COVID-19, there will be a reference to COVID-19. That said, we are always open to seeing how things can be presented better or in a way that is more intuitive and we will take that into account.
I think he had some other questions on SINGA, but that was extensively debated earlier in the year. Some questions in relation to MAS, that would be publicly available as well. The thing is this, if Mr Leong Mun Wai would like very specific figures or specific data, the better way to do that would be to file a Parliamentary Question (PQ) and then we would have the appropriate time to look for the specific answer that he needs and to address this concern. I think I have covered most of the questions, Mr Chairman.
The Chairman: Thank you, Minister. Clarifications? Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Chairman, thank you. I thank the Minister for the clarification on some of my questions, especially the one on COVID-19. Yes, I think we will refer to the Budget Book again. But I think if the Government can help us by singling out all the COVID-19 expenditures, that will help our understanding better. That is one clarification if that can be done.
The second question is, I have specifically asked for confirmation about the financial assets, S$1.4 trillion, which is already a reported number, and also some other figures, S$200 billion new reserves accumulated by MAS. Can the Minister just confirm that? I do not think this needs to be another PQ.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Chairman, if it is something that is already publicly available, then I do not need to confirm it. But if it is something that he wishes confirmation on, then I will have to check it, because if I were to give confirmation on anything, I would like to be sure that it is actually correct. So, if the Member would just let me have that, drop me a note or he could file a Parliamentary Question (PQ), we will see how best to address it.
On the other point about the expenditures, we will look and see how we can present this in a manner that is useful. I say this because I do not want to leave the Member with an impression that MOF will always be collating and organising information at individual Member's request because that is very difficult to do. But we do understand that the public wants to understand how certain figures and expenditures are dealt with and we will see how we can do that in a meaningful way.
The Chairman: Ms Hazel Poa.
Ms Hazel Poa: Apart from the two questions that the Minister feels is not necessary to answer, I have a few other questions mentioned earlier. One of which is: what would be the corporate tax rate increase that would be necessary to raise the same amount of revenue as a 2% hike in GST? And also, what is the expected rate of GST in 2030?
Finally, can I seek confirmation whether or not land will be repeatedly sold to HDB at prevailing land prices and also does the same apply to industrial land with respect to JTC?
Ms Indranee Rajah: Sorry, the last question was whether land will be repeatedly sold to whom?
Ms Hazel Poa: HDB and also JTC.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Do you mean the land for HDB development?
Ms Hazel Poa: Yes. At the end of the lease, when it returns to the Government, will it again, you know, repeat?
Ms Indranee Rajah: Right. Well, that would happen once every 99 years. So, we have not quite reached that stage yet and it might be a little premature to address that question.
The expected rate of GST in 2030. Well, we really do not know at this point of time. Right now, we have just gone through one exercise of raising the GST by two percentage points in 2023 and 2024. Obviously, we will try to make that last as long as we possibly can with the revenues that we have.
And I think the last question was, what would be the tax rate increase? I do not have that figure with me at the moment. Perhaps if the Member just files a PQ on that, I will get back to her.
The Chairman: Yes, Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Thank you, Chairman. I would like to confirm with the Minister again, since the $1.4 trillion financial assets are reported in the Government Financial Statements, the Minister would know it. And I am asking her to confirm that number. Is it a number that cannot be confirmed? Or I do not know what is the reason why it cannot be spoken in Parliament?
Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Chairman, I thank Mr Leong Mun Wai's faith in my abilities. But I do not usually carry all the figures of all published Government data in my head. So, if Mr Leong Mun Wai is saying that there is a figure which is out there and it is published, and it is published by a Government agency, then I would have to assume that it is correct.
It is just that if I do not have the figure with me at the moment and if it is MAS – because he must remember that I am with MOF – I would like to check before I give any confirmations. If he has an issue with the figure, he should let us know what the problem is as well.
So, in short, he is asking about a figure. If it is published and it is a published figure from the Government, he can take it that that is the figure.
The Chairman: Mr Liang Eng Hwa, would you like to withdraw your amendment?
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Chairman, I still have a question.
The Chairman: We need to progress.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: No, Chairman, if there is a question, I have to ask the question.
The Chairman: There is a time limit.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: So, if there is a time limit, we cannot ask any more questions, even though those are relevant questions?
The Chairman: There are guillotine time limits.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Okay, thank you, Chairman.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa: Mr Chairman, allow me to, firstly, congratulate the Finance Minister for his maiden Budget, which is very well-structured and far-reaching; and also to thank the Second Minister for Finance for answering our questions as well as the MOF team for the tremendous work.
Sir, we have seen multiple Budgets in the last two FYs due to the crisis situation. I hope that FY 2022/2023 will be a one-Budget FY, which will mean that we are back to a normalised or stable environment. Nevertheless, I am sure Members in this House would be ready to consider any additional fiscal measures should the situation deteriorate and the need arises to support Singaporean families, households and businesses as well. With that, Chairman, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
[(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $974,778,400 for Head M ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $141,671,700 for Head M ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Committee of Supply – Head J (Ministry of Defence)","subTitle":"Securing our place in the world","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Chairman: Head J, Ministry of Defence. Mr Vikram Nair.
Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): Chairman, I beg to move \"That the total sum to be allocated for Head J of the Estimates be reduced by $100\".
We live in a dangerous world. In the past week, we have witnessed Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the largest war on the European continent since World War II. The signs of this conflict had been brewing for a long time. The Russian troop build-up along the Ukrainian border had taken place over many months and various NATO countries, including the US, had anticipated conflict would break out.
Yet, when the time for fighting came, despite wide-spread condemnation from the international community, Ukraine had to fight alone against a much more heavily armed neighbour. This is an important reminder to all countries, particularly small ones like us, that we cannot assume other countries will come to our assistance when we are at war and we have to do all we can to defend ourselves.
The Russia-Ukraine conflict has brought to light some concerning methods of coercion, including \"false flag\" operations – essentially, disinformation campaigns – to create a pretext for war.
This is not the only hotspot. In the past year, we have witnessed other significant developments in the international security environment. The US-China rivalry has continued to intensify and we see that this is increasingly playing out in both countries' regulations in the trade and technology domains. We have also seen stronger rhetoric and action over Taiwan and this seems to be an increasingly likely catalyst if a conflict, intended or otherwise, were to break out between the two powers.
In recent years, commentators have also suggested that the trajectory of the international order will be determined by developments in the Asia Pacific. As a result, there is a discernible shift in the global centre of gravity and extra-regional countries are increasingly turning their attention here. This includes the European Union countries like the UK, France and Germany. In one view, this is a good thing as the more invested countries are in this region, the more likely they will play a role in balancing the powers in this region.
However, with this growing attention focused on the Asia Pacific, we have also witnessed the emergence of new security arrangements, such as the trilateral security pact between Australia, the UK and the US. The flip side of this is that there are concerns that such developments may have a divisive effect in the region or could, potentially, trigger an arms race.
Another trend that has emerged is the growing intersection between geostrategic issues and technology.
Technology is a major area of contestation in the strategic rivalry between the US and China. Technology is also being used by both state and non-state actors that seek non-conventional ways to coerce their adversaries, including through cyber attacks and information warfare.
Although Singapore is far away from the Russia-Ukraine conflict, I have seen messages being circulated in chat groups that seemed to be targeted at swaying public opinion in Singapore and I have my suspicions that such messages may be part of an info-operations exercise by foreign actors.
While the pandemic has pushed us in the positive direction in terms of leveraging and maximising the use of digital platforms, this has, arguably, left our societies more susceptible to digital threats.
Could the Minister for Defence comment on some of the trends in our security environment that MINDEF is watching? Could the Minister for Defence also provide an update on how these and other geopolitical security developments are shaping MINDEF's and the SAF's plans and priorities? How will MINDEF and the SAF respond to the challenges in our external environment and how will MINDEF and the SAF work with like-minded partners to address these threats?
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
The Chairman: Mr Alex Yam is not here. Mr Vikram Nair, your next cut, please.
Mr Vikram Nair: Chairman, as a small nation, Singapore's security is contingent on the stability of the wider region. Because of the open and interconnected nature of Singapore's economy, major destabilising developments elsewhere can have a very tangible impact on our lives here.
The ongoing battle against COVID-19 is a clear example of this. Even at times when Singapore has appeared to be managing relatively well with the virus, we have seen other countries struggling. Our dependence on trade and travel has also meant this virus would, eventually, find its way back to Singapore.
The SAF has played an important role in assisting our neighbours during times of crisis, including assisting with relief efforts, when neighbours faced natural disasters.
Over the years, the Minister for Defence has updated the House on MINDEF's and the SAF's efforts to cooperate with international partners to safeguard the peace and security in the region.
So, I have a question for MINDEF and the SAF and, that is, whether it is taking any steps to assist our neighbours in its battle against COVID-19. And, if so, how has it done?
Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong (Jurong): Despite facing the pandemic of a century, the SAF responded admirably. Essential operations were not suspended even during the height of the circuit breaker. The SAF has now vaccinated almost 100% of its soldiers, sailors and airmen.
However, last year, Minister for Defence Dr Ng Eng Hen spoke about delays to major SAF programmes and initiatives due to the pandemic. This would, undoubtedly, have led to an impact on SAF's medium- to long-term capability development plans.
COVID-19 has disrupted supply chains around the world. Would it also disrupt the supply chains for building the next generation platforms and technologies that the SAF is seeking to acquire?
In the same vein, I would also like to better understand how the pandemic has affected the SAF's ability to develop and test new training doctrines in overseas settings. I am well aware that there are some military manoeuvres that we simply cannot practise in land-scarce Singapore. And I am concerned that the COVID-19 travel restrictions over the past few years may have made it difficult for the SAF to pursue valuable training opportunities overseas.
Could the Minister explain how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the SAF's medium- to long-term capability development plans?
Mr Don Wee (Chua Chu Kang): Chairman, the COVID-19 pandemic has caused huge disruptions. Our SAF training has probably been one of the more heavily impacted since limited aspects of Army training can be done remotely or online. In the early phase of the pandemic, Basic Military Training and National Service (NS) call-ups had to be suspended for a while. Some overseas training and exercises were affected due to travel restrictions as well.
Last year, MINDEF spoke about the resumption of some overseas training and large-scale exercises, after implementing stringent testing and safe management measures. I am glad that despite some disruptions, the SAF's training did not grind to a halt and that all parties managed to find ways to proceed with some exercises. The external threats to our nation do not diminish during pandemics. Hence, neither should our defence preparations and training. What is happening in Europe now is a stark reminder that security threats are not pandemic-proof.
As Singapore is moving forward with our calibrated approach towards resumption of most activities, I feel that we are in a better position now than we were earlier in the pandemic, as a significant proportion of our population now is vaccinated. In addition, our people are much more familiar with how to interact with one another safely, despite the sustained presence of the virus in our community.
Hence, would MINDEF share an update on SAF's training at home and abroad? Which parts of our training have returned to pre-COVID-19 levels?
Mr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Chairman, as Singapore transits to living with COVID-19, the SAF has also, gradually, resumed training for NSmen. I note that this is not without the implementation of safe management measures, testing and cohorting arrangements, to ensure the safety of our NSmen. What are MINDEF's plans to recall NSmen in the coming year?
Many of our NSmen have not had the opportunity to participate in large-scale overseas exercises. Even while SAF successfully concluded Exercise Wallaby in 2021, the scale of the exercise was limited, due to concerns relating to the transmission of the virus.
Nations are now transiting to living with COVID-19. With global borders now gradually reopening, overseas exercises must continue to be scaled up to pre-pandemic levels. Can MINDEF share its plans to resume larger-scale overseas exercises in 2022?
The Chairman: Mr Vikram Nair. Mr Nair, if you would like to take your two cuts together, please do.
Mr Vikram Nair: Chairman, thank you. Even as we battle COVID-19, external threats persist. As we grapple with the pandemic and its effects, there have been new vulnerabilities for potential adversaries to exploit in order to target Singapore.
At the COS debate last year, Minister for Defence Dr Ng Eng Hen talked about disruptions to SAF's training activities as a result of the pandemic. He highlighted that there had been steady progress on resuming In-Camp Training and exercises, enabled by strict safe management measures and robust testing. The developments in the world that I have highlighted earlier make it imperative that SAF remains operationally ready and able to function at all times, even in this pandemic environment.
So, now that we are one year on, I would be grateful if the Minister can provide an update on how the pandemic has affected SAF's operational readiness and whether it is still able to move into operation if necessary.
Training in the SAF is an important and necessary part of our nation's defence. And as I have mentioned in my earlier cut, it is important for such training to continue even during this difficult period. So, this is, in fact, the flipside of my earlier cut.
Now that SAF's training activities and operations are likely to require people to continue to work in close proximity – and these can be in camps, on ships, in military vehicles or even on exercises – there is clearly a risk of COVID-19 transmission. I also expect that SAF will need to work on scenarios on what will happen if parts of operational units come down with COVID-19.
So, I would be grateful if I can get an update, first of all, on what are the safety measures that are being taken to protect Servicemen in relation to COVID-19 and reduce the risk of transmission of serious illness arising from COVID-19. Secondly, what are the measures that MINDEF has taken to manage the risk of COVID-19 and to continue operating?
The Chairman: Mr Dennis Tan.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Thank you, Mr Chairman. In the last two years, COVID-19 has affected virtually all aspects of our lives. It has affected our workplaces, businesses, public offices, schools, events and many other areas. SAF and military training have not been spared, too. SAF had to overcome the challenges which COVID-19 might have imposed on its training programmes, training methodology, restriction of travel for overseas exercise and, possibly, our morale, due to restriction of activities, including cohesion activities, and so on and so forth. And all these without compromising SAF's combat readiness and maintaining the quality of its training regimes and programmes and the morale of our Servicemen.
The recent Russian invasion of Ukraine is a reminder to us of the importance of Singapore having a strong defence force as an effective deterrent against foreign aggression and ambitions. Both the quality and credibility of our defence force must be maintained at all times, regardless of the challenges, such as COVID-19.
At last year's COS, Minister Ng Eng Hen shared with the House that despite the challenges of COVID-19, protection of key installations, maritime security, air defence and counter-terrorism efforts continue around the clock. The Minister also shared that COVID-19 affected some training programmes, exercises and deployments. And while certain major exercises resumed with the help of safe management measures, it might require more time to restart other exercises or for training to reach pre-COVID-19 levels.
I hope the Minister can brief the House again on what was SAF's experience in maintaining its training regime and high-level of combat readiness last year, our second year of fighting COVID-19, and share with us the challenges which SAF had overcomed.
At last year's COS, Minister Ng Eng Hen also updated the House on the involvement of many SAF personnel to assist in COVID-19-related operations for the community, such as packing masks, stabilising the outbreak in dormitories, helping to set up the community care and recovery facilities, supporting contact tracing and medical logistics operations.
While I understand and agree with the support given by our SAF personnel in these areas, it also meant time-out from their training and their usual deployment or roles. As we head towards a post-pandemic world – and this includes more countries opening up their borders – I would like to ask the Minister what are SAF's plans to work towards the resumption of training and exercises back to a pre-COVID-19 level. Will SAF be enhancing training for all our forces and Servicemen and, in a sense, making up for their time spent away from our training or operational role as a result of COVID-19?
The Chairman: Ms He Ting Ru is not here. Mr Henry Kwek.
Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry (Kebun Baru): Mr Chairman, Russia's invasion of Ukraine and, with it, a new world order, is unfolding before our very eyes. There are many lessons that we can draw from the new reality.
A strong SAF is vital in deterring potential aggressors and in protecting Singapore's peace and stability.
We cannot expect others to shed blood for us.
Therefore, we must work hard to build the Next-Generation SAF and stay ahead of rapidly changing defence and warfare. For example, with the rapid evolution of technology, interstate conflict may no longer manifest in conventional physical or kinetic modes. Conflict could instead be conducted through grey zone tactics below the threshold of war, or through attacks in the cyber and digital domains, where most of us now live and work following the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. And even as the domains and modalities for conflict continue to expand and grow, existing threats to our peace and security, such as terrorism, remain salient.
I also recognise the importance of SAF ensuring that its platforms and capabilities serve as a credible deterrent to conventional military threats.
Indeed, any perceived weak point in our military capabilities is a vulnerability that could be exploited and the SAF must remain ready and prepared to respond to the ever-growing range of challenges to defend Singapore.
As a small country with a shrinking total fertility rate, we can expect subsequent National Service cohorts to similarly decrease in size in future. At the very same time, new technologies arising from the fourth Industrial Revolution, such as artificial intelligence (AI), digital analytics and the Internet of Things, offer new opportunities for SAF to leverage as a force multiplier to overcome manpower limitations.
I welcome the efforts to build the Next-Generation SAF, as MINDEF and SAF first announced in 2019. It is timely and necessary that SAF harnesses technology to respond better to security threats.
Could the Minister for Defence update the House on the progress of the transformation efforts towards the Next-Generation SAF?
Mr Desmond Choo: Mr Chairman, our low birth rate is a significant challenge to Singapore's defence strategy. The number of full-time National Servicemen is projected to decrease. MINDEF and SAF will need to do more with less.
At the same time, new technologies have allowed us to better optimise manpower resources and complete tasks better, more efficiently and with less manpower. I believe that MINDEF and SAF have already made strides in this area. For example, at last year's COS, the Minister for Defence spoke about the inauguration of the Singapore Army's Headquarters Sense & Strike (HQ SS), which integrated various technology-enabled capabilities, to allow the Army to \"see better and shoot faster\" with less manpower.
The Minister also spoke about how new technology had enabled SAF to redesign more jobs. SAF can then tap on a larger pool of Servicemen to serve in roles that they would have previously been ineligible for under SAF's old medical classification system. This included being deployed to protect key installations, now augmented by unmanned watch towers.
SAF has been working closely with the defence technology community to leverage advances in technology to better support the needs of our defence strategies. The use of technology, such as drones, can significantly make up for a shortfall in personnel. Can MINDEF update on its plans to develop and intensify the use of unmanned technologies to ensure our defence strategies remain robust despite our declining population? How has MINDEF developed its concepts of operations to incorporate such unmanned technologies? How has MINDEF incorporated AI also into its defence plans?
The Chairman: Mr Gan Thiam Poh is not here. Mr Shawn Hwang.
Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong: The ongoing hostility in Ukraine is difficult to ignore. The onslaught of cyber attacks that the Ukrainian government is facing shines a light on the nature of warfare in the 21st century. Battles are fought not just in the sea, air and on land, but also in cyberspace. Ukraine is not alone when facing such threats. Recent events have underscored that these attacks can be initiated by non-state actors. Major ransomware attacks have targeted critical infrastructure in different parts of the world, causing serious, real-world disruptions.
In fact, Singapore has experienced such cyber attacks as well. In the years ahead, it seems likely that potential cyber attacks will continue to increase in frequency, scale and complexity. If these attacks were to successfully target our military infrastructure and systems, there would be dire consequences. In the light of this, could the Minister for Defence provide views on how threats in the digital domain are evolving and what MINDEF and SAF are doing to better address these evolving threats?
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Pioneer): The cybersecurity threat landscape is constantly evolving in the current digital age. These threats, which include ransomware, denial-of-service attacks and advanced persistent threats, are originating further up the value chain by impacting operational technology and threatening critical infrastructure.
As a result, the effects of cybersecurity threats have left no stone unturned, as it has the potential to adversely impact governmental operations, global supply chains, healthcare systems and our military systems, among others.
On the defence and national security front, we have seen the increased prevalence of grey zone operations involving malicious cyber campaigns. At last year’s Committee of Supply, the Minister for Defence said that the Cybersecurity Task Force had been stood up, as part of SAF’s plans to monitor and actively seek out potential threats and aggressors in the cyber domain. I think this is a step in the right direction to shore up Singapore’s defences in the digital domain.
In view of this, I would like to ask the Minister for Defence for an update on the SAF’s ongoing efforts to enhance our military’s cybersecurity to address these emerging cyber threats.
Mr Ang Wei Neng (West Coast): Chairman, the rise of China and the evolving geopolitical situation between China and the US had a global impact, especially on Singapore. When US President Richard Nixon visited China 50 years ago in 1972, the US was a superpower while China was seen as the sick man of Asia. In terms of nominal GDP, the size of China's economy in 1972 was just 8.9% of the US economy. But in 2020, China's economy became 70.3% of the US economy. It is projected that China's economy will overtake the US economy by 2030. The rivalry between the two countries has given rise to stiff competition in technology, innovation and defence build-up. As a result, Quad and AUKUS were formed to counter the influence of China. Many ASEAN countries, including Singapore, have been asked to take sides. We are being swept up in this current of geopolitical change.
I would like to ask the Minister for Defence what is the impact of the Quad and AUKUS on our relationship with the US and China and how does it impact the current Five-Power Defence Arrangement, or FPDA, which was started in 1971 as a third security arrangement involving Australia, New Zealand, Britain, Malaysia and Singapore? Will Singapore continue to welcome US nuclear submarines at our naval base and, eventually, host Australia's nuclear submarine when New Zealand had categorically said no?
In view of the COVID-19 pandemic, especially the latest Omicron wave, how does it affect MINDEF's engagement with its US and Chinese counterparts, including the joint exercises with these two countries respectively? Has the ongoing Ukraine war affected our defence relations with the US and China?
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Chairman, as a small state, Singapore’s defence depends not only on our will and ability to defend ourselves, but also the strategic friendships that we maintain with other nations. Singapore is particularly vulnerable to shocks that take place in our external environment, often due to developments outside of our control. Hence, our cooperation with like-minded partners in areas of common interest is important.
As the world looks to step out of the COVID-19 shadow, I am glad to see that diplomatic meetings and engagements are starting to return. I imagine that virtual formats may not be the most conducive means to build mutual trust. The recent agreement signed at the Singapore-Indonesia Leaders’ Retreat is a good case in point. Notwithstanding that, I am sure that MINDEF and SAF have innovated new ways to keep up international engagements and advance partnerships in extraordinary times.
How are MINDEF and SAF cooperating with their foreign counterparts to address common security challenges?
It is also important to note that national security threats have evolved today and may now take less conventional forms. Instead of hot war or armed conflict, different threats, such as cyber attacks, hostile information campaigns and even future pandemics, might endanger our lives and livelihoods, equally or even to a greater extent.
In view of that, what are the principles guiding our defence diplomacy efforts? Will we see more agreements to conduct joint military exercises and our SAF training abroad, or for other types of cooperation like the cybersecurity MOU we signed with the US Department of Defence when US Vice President Kamala Harris visited Singapore last year?
Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry: Mr Chairman, I would like to ask MINDEF about the implications of the Defence Cooperation Agreement with Indonesia for Singapore and for SAF.
The Prime Minister recently visited Indonesia for the Singapore-Indonesia Leaders’ Retreat hosted by Indonesian President Jokowi. Not only was the Retreat significant because it was the first Retreat since the COVID-19 pandemic, it was also successful in that it saw the signing of three sets of agreements that addressed longstanding bilateral issues under the ambit of the Expanded Framework.
I am heartened by the good progress that we have made in advancing our bilateral interests in issues, such as the Flight Information Region, extradition and military training, especially following the long-drawn discussions and negotiations on these issues, which started back in 1995.
One of the three agreements signed was a Joint Statement on the 2007 Defence Cooperation Agreement (DCA) and its Implementation Arrangement between SAF and the Indonesian National Defence Forces for the Military Training Area in Indonesia. What does the DCA with Indonesia mean for Singapore, MINDEF and SAF?
Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (Chua Chu Kang): The recent crisis in Ukraine has thrown up stark reminders to all nation-states, big or small, that cooperation in times of need is critical. Globally, US-China tensions have polarised countries, both in our region and further afield. These have manifested in various geopolitical theatres, including the South China Sea.
Internally, many ASEAN countries are facing challenges domestically, economically and with the current pandemic. A region that is divided and distracted is not in our interest. Singapore should seek to facilitate stronger cooperation among ASEAN countries, given the increasingly complex regional landscape. The ASEAN Defence Ministers' Meeting (ADMM) is the region's security platform to engage in open dialogue and practical cooperation to foster regional stability. ADMM prides itself as being open and inclusive in this regard.
Can the Minister for Defence provide an update on MINDEF's efforts to foster greater cooperation through ADMM? Further, ADMM-Plus consists of eight other countries, including China, Russia and the US. ADMM and ADMM-Plus are the region's security architecture and are meant to contribute to regional peace and stability among all 18 countries. Given the developments in Ukraine, what is the impact on the work and security cooperation of both ADMM and ADMM-Plus?
Mr Don Wee: Chairman, climate change poses an existential threat to all humanity. The related crises arising from climate change have deep implications for international peace and stability. Singapore is one of the more vulnerable nations due to the rising sea level. We are already experiencing erratic weather patterns which wreak havoc with sudden downpours causing flooding. Changes in weather patterns are also affecting food supplies – a frightening prospect, as we rely heavily on imported food; exporting nations will prioritise their own nations’ needs first.
While Singapore may be limited in how we can contribute to global climate action, we should spare no effort as we have a strong moral obligation and duty.
Would the Ministry share an update on its measures to improve environmental sustainability and reduce carbon emissions within SAF and MINDEF? I urge the Ministry to continue with its systematic and comprehensive approach to sustainability, from reducing food waste to trying out green aviation fuel for RSAF’s fighter jets. I look forward to hearing more about its green initiatives, improved processes and enhanced inspections to prevent wastage, particularly for food and electricity.
The Chairman: Minister for Defence Dr Ng Eng Hen.
The Minister for Defence (Dr Ng Eng Hen): Mr Chairman, thank you for allowing me to reply to the Members' cuts. I will try to answer as many of the questions that they have asked. The others will be replied to by the Senior Ministers of State.
Mr Chairman, I state the obvious when I say that battling COVID-19 has been the central preoccupation of governments and their citizens all over the world in the last two years, including Singapore. If we think about it, very few events have that power and reach. In recent history, I think World War II did, and that shared experience had defined that affected generation. If you compare, COVID-19 is not as devastating as World War II, but many years on, I suspect that it will likely linger in the memories of all those who have lived through it.
But despite the singular challenge of this century, COVID-19, there is no respite, no temporary cessation of other challenges that pose security threats to Singapore, as some Members have observed. My Ministry and SAF have remained very focused on the security environment even as we went into the trenches to join the whole-of-Government in our fight against COVID-19.
The SAF’s core purpose, first and foremost, must remain to protect Singapore from all potential external aggressors. Mr Vikram Nair alluded to this, Mr Dennis Tan, too. And because we are a small country, with less space figuratively and literally to react, we need to recognise these threats early. For Singapore’s survival and well-being, the SAF not only needs to be always prepared, to plan long term and be well-organised, but also nimble to change, if we are to prevent or ward off imminent danger.
Therefore, despite our efforts to fight COVID-19, MINDEF and SAF have continued to plan in earnest so that we build the next generation SAF that is not only capable of meeting today’s security threats, but anticipating tomorrow’s, too. And I think that must be our approach. There will always be the unexpected threats, just like COVID-19. But the better the SAF is structured to deal with the known threats, the more bandwidth it has to deal with the unknown unknowns. I will deal with some of these initiatives later on, which Members have asked for.
But, first, let me put MINDEF’s budget this year in context.
This year, my Ministry will increase our spending relative to the past two years. Mr Shawn Huang asked about this. That increase is due to the resumption of projects, training and exercises which were disrupted by COVID-19 over the past two years. I should underscore that we continued to purchase and acquire new platforms despite COVID-19. But suppliers were also affected, causing delays. For example, deliveries of RSAF’s H225M Medium Lift and CH-47F Heavy Lift helicopters were delayed from end-2020 to March and May 2021, respectively. The delivery of our Invincible-class submarines, initially planned for last year, has also been delayed. For this year and beyond, projects deferred or delayed will resume, as will the acquisition of new platforms.
Members have asked about training – Mr Don Wee, Mr Desmond Choo, Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Shawn Huang. SAF expects to increase numbers of training, both locally and overseas, to reach pre-COVID-19 levels later this year. Last year, we, indeed, had fewer overseas exercises and with fewer troops. For example, Exercise Forging Sabre in the US, with 800 personnel, Exercise Wallaby in Australia with around 580 personnel, much fewer than pre-COVID-19 levels. At home, NS training has progressively returned to normalcy and in-camp training call-up rates are on track to reach pre-COVID-19 levels this year.
With the planned resumption of both projects and training to pre-COVID-19 levels in the coming financial year, we are projecting an expenditure of $16.3 billion. This translates to an increase of 6.5%, which is expected to be one-off and a catch-up for the reduced spending for FYs 2020 and 2021. COVID-19 resulted in sharp dips and spikes but, over the next five years, MINDEF's budget is expected to keep pace with inflation, or 3% to 4% nominal growth each year, which I have assured this House previously.
The reduction in spending over the last two years did not occur at the expense of readiness. Members have asked about this – Mr Vikram Nair and Mr Dennis Tan. Indeed, SAF was able to operate at a high level of readiness and conduct critical operations amidst the pandemic. Soldiers within units were disciplined and kept to strict health and safety protocols, such as health screening for all recruits and instructors, training in smaller groups where possible, temperature taking, testing, and testing returning NSmen from their In-Camp Trainings (ICTs) every seven days.
Of our MINDEF/SAF personnel, 99.7% are vaccinated and 91% have received their booster shot. And that has helped us keep our infections at bay. I said that we were determined to keep building up the next-generation SAF – Mr Henry Kwek and Mr Desmond Choo asked for updates. Let me provide some details.
The Formidable-class frigates, first commissioned in 2007, are now 15 years old and due for their midlife upgrade. They are our key fighting platforms for maritime strike, anti-air and anti-submarine warfare, but the midlife upgrade, as we do for all platforms, will be more than just addition and alterations, if I can use the construction term. Because each time we do a midlife upgrade, we look at the technology that has evolved, our manpower, the design and, including artificial intelligence, if we can.
So, after the upgrade, the frigates' combat capabilities will increase and be equipped with better combat management and communication systems, weapons systems, along with improved maintenance processes – basically, to use less to achieve more. The next-generation SAF, which Mr Desmond Choo asked about, too, will have more unmanned systems across the three services. The RSAF has acquired the Orbiter 4 Close-Range Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (CR-UAV). And with their smaller size, capable sensors and increased portability, these can be used for a wide range of operations, in peace and combat.
This year, our Navy will deploy the first tranche of Maritime Security Unmanned Surface Vessels (USVs) to patrol local waters. The Republic of Singapore Navy (RSN) will also replace its Mine Countermeasure Vessels with a fully unmanned system from 2027 onwards.
We are among the first few navies in the world to operate unmanned maritime systems. These systems were designed and integrated locally by DSO National Laboratories and Defence Science and Technology Agency (DSTA) and RSN. DSO and DSTA are critical enablers.
DSO celebrates its 50th anniversary this year. We are immensely proud of and grateful for the men and women of DSO, who, for the past five decades, have worked hard behind-the-scenes to provide game-changing defence technologies and solutions. They have transformed the SAF into today's modern fighting machine.
Some Members would remember that at last year's Committee of Supply (COS), I spoke about the inauguration of the Headquarters Sense and Strike (HQ SS) and the HQ SS was able to participate for the first time in exercise Forging Sabre late last year. The Army will also operationalise the first Hunter Armoured Battle Group later this month.
With your permission, Mr Chairman, I would like to display an image on the screens.
The Chairman: Please do. [A slide was shown to hon Members.]
Dr Ng Eng Hen: The next-generation SAF is taking shape. You can already see its new form now, inchoate, but with greater definition as each year passes. By 2040, the Army, equipped in the next-generation infantry battalions and new armoured tracked carriers and howitzers, will be more manoeuvrable, able to track and strike faster and harder. The Navy, with Multi-Role Combat Vessels, Invincible-class submarines and USVs will be able to see and strike further at sea and in the depths, to better protect our waters and our sea lines of communication.
The next-generation air force, with F-15s, F-35s and the next generation Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, will be more lethal, versatile and effective to better protect our skies. This next-generation SAF will provide for this and the next generation, our children and theirs, greater confidence in dealing with potential aggressors to fulfil the SAF's core mission.
Many Members have asked how we navigate the increasingly complex geopolitical situation and rivalries. I am afraid no country has a magic formula, no Aladdin's lamp that you can make wishes from. Our philosophy is a simple one. We make friends with all countries and seek no enemies. But we are realists, too, and keen observers of history and events around us, and, especially what happens to small, vulnerable states.
We saw how Kuwait, an oil-rich state, was invaded by Iraq in 1990. We observed how Qatar suffered an air, land and sea blockade imposed by its neighbours in 2017, not so long ago. And at this very moment, we witness Ukrainians deeply troubled as they ponder over their future, balanced on a knife's edge. The unthinkable and unimaginable have occurred. Their cities are under bombardment and with foreign troops; their way of life, their dreams are shattered; their independence and freedom are under peril. Ukraine, with a population of over 40 million, is not a small country. But size and might are relative. For them, Kuwaitis and Qataris, these moments are about life and death, freedom or subjugation.
Indeed, we live by the dictum that the stronger the SAF, the easier it is to make friends and have fewer enemies. No one will defend Singapore as robustly if Singaporeans do not or cannot. But if we are able to build up the kind of SAF by 2040, can we be satisfied collectively, as leaders in the Government and Members of this House, that we have discharged our duties honourably and with satisfaction to our children's generation?
Some here might say, yes, because that kind of SAF is impressive. I think our founding fathers could not have envisaged that we could have come quite this far. It will, certainly, be among the most modern and better-equipped militaries in the region. But my honest answer is \"almost there, but not quite\", because, as good and as ambitious as the next-generation SAF is, there are some gaps in capabilities, which recent events and developments have warned us against.
And I am glad that Members of this House have warned us, too – Mr Vikram Nair, Mr Shawn Huang and Mr Patrick Tay. And I am talking primarily about threats in the digital domain. To complete that SAF 2040, we will need a fourth service to complement the existing three services. I will spend some time elaborating on this significant move as the reasons are important.
Let us characterise the digital threat, first, in broad general terms, to know what countries, including Singapore, are up against. The digital terrain has become as real as the land, air and sea domains for which we have raised the Army, Air Force and Navy. I think no one here doubts that. In fact, some would argue that, for the next generations, the digital domain is the dominant domain. So much so that a new word \"metaverse\" has been coined for that virtual universe.
Threats that emanate in the digital domain can readily impact events in a real physical world. That divide between virtual and physical, in security terms, is a false one as the two are, in fact, intricately interwoven. Again, I do not think anyone here would gainsay this. We already have real-life examples that exemplify this truth and Members have quoted it: fuel shortages across the US East Coast last May due to ransomware attacks on the Colonial Pipeline; Iranians could not top up their gas and petrol stations last October because the payment systems were hacked. There have also been clear examples of countries or non-state entities, like terrorist groups, that use a combination of attacks through both the digital and physical domains.
I first spoke about this type of hybrid warfare seven years ago in my 2015 COS speech, but, over the past few years, there have been many more examples of this type of campaigns. Even now, we are witnessing with our own eyes that kind of campaign in Ukraine. The Financial Times reported it, with the headline: \"Ukraine shores up cyber defences\" and this was on 14 February, so quite recent. Let me give Members some relevant quotes which provide vividly what to expect in this kind of attack: \"The country has been under constant attack since 2014, cyber-espionage damage to databases and servers, disruption to powers and communications, and disinformation are all part of the playbook. The Ukraine government and independent experts expect hostile cyber activity to increase, in an effort to destabilise the country before or during any physical attack\".
Another quote: \"There are bound to have been many, many more attacks over the years that we do not know about and that have left malware embedded in systems ready to be activated\" – this was a quote from Prof VS Subrahmaniam, who is a professor of Computer Science at Northwestern University in the US. He adds: \"It is a bit like a bomb being planted in your house, is benign until someone sets it off\". Another quote: \"Ukraine meanwhile suffers from a deficit of public sector cyber security expertise, weak regulation, limited response capabilities and a lack of coordination between various agencies\".
I think all of the Members would agree with me here that we can learn from this unfortunate situation. And far better to learn and adjust now, because if we wait and change only after an attack on ourselves, the cost is going to be very high. When we look at all these incidents in the digital domain, what then should our response be? Fortunately, our intelligence sources have not identified such orchestrated attempts to subvert or subjugate Singapore using hybrid means.
But, of course, that does not mean that the threat will never come. So, I think, we best prepare now with a longer runway. And for SAF, a clear-cut response is a fourth service. Internally, over the past decade, MINDEF/SAF have progressively built up what we call the C4I – Command, Control, Communications, Computers and Intelligence.
We built up that community to enhance the resilience of our networks and systems. We set up the Defence Cyber Organisation (DCO) in 2017, to coordinate cyber security across the defence sector, and Members of Parliament have filed questions and I have given updates. And some of you have asked for updates, even at this COS.
The C4I community and its predecessors, the Military Intelligence Organisation and Joint C4, have been supporting elements to the three other services for over 20 years. However, the demands and direct responsibilities on the intelligence community for both threats in the digital and physical world have risen sharply. If we take terrorism, for example, the role of the C4I community is not only supportive but a direct responsibility.
Members would remember that when 9/11 occurred, it was characterised as a failure in intelligence. Shortly thereafter, Members might recall that decisive actions by ISD, based on good intelligence, foiled a Jemaah Islamiyah plot to launch terrorist attacks in Singapore.
The formation of a new service for the C4I community will greatly facilitate their mission focus, sharpen direct responsibility and accountability, and capability development. The human resource is particularly important for the intelligence services and having a Service status, just like Army, Navy and Air Force, will enhance recruitment and career prospects considerably.
The evolution of the C4I community into a new fourth service will integrate and expand our capabilities in the digital domain. But we will need more than that to deal effectively with digital threats from external aggressors that we expect will grow in number, sophistication and organisation. To achieve this, we will need not only an intelligence force but a dedicated digital force. The current DCO is building up such a force but it is insufficient for the SAF’s expanding needs and mandate. Figuratively, if the digital force is now a battalion force, we actually need a few brigades, perhaps even a Division-size force.
MINDEF and SAF have been considering these changes for some time now, exploring various options to better prepare for threats in the digital domain. Our conclusion is that a new fourth service – the Digital and Intelligence Service, or DIS – best encapsulates this fourth arm of the SAF.
DIS should not and cannot be just like the Army, Air Force and Navy, with similar troops operating in the digital domain instead of the physical domain. The nature of the digital domain and the threats therein require different skillsets, mindsets – what we call Tactics, Techniques and Procedures. I think that is intuitive to most.
SAF envisages that the type of soldiers you recruit for DIS, their training, force structure will be different. But some traits must be maintained for soldiers across the four services – the adherence to SAF core values, operational mindset, resilience that lead to mission success and, above all, a commitment to the shared mission to enhance Singapore’s security and peace.
Technology, especially related to IT and communications, will play a big role for DIS. But it will also require a force with specialisations not only in core IT areas and communications, but in diverse areas, including data science, psychology, linguistics, anthropology and geography, that will help them understand the motivation and means by which orchestrated state and non-state groups aim to harm Singapore.
The addition of this fourth service, the DIS, will allow SAF to better train and fight as a networked, integrated and expanded force to deal with the spectrum of threats that we know exist today, but also the digital domain that we know will increase in the future. Other countries have also come to the same conclusion and added a digital force to their tri-services. Germany, for example, has established the Cyber and Information Domain Service, consolidating its Communication and Information Systems Command and Geo-information Centre.
There are many procedures and processes to undertake to set up this fourth service, DIS. Notwithstanding this, we expect to set it up by the last quarter of this year.
NSmen form the backbone of the SAF, on land, air and sea and, in the future, also our digital domain. Whatever our plans, ultimately, it is the quality and commitment of our NSmen that will determine whether SAF can succeed.
This year marks the 55th anniversary of NS and, as we have previously done, we will have a number of events to recognise their contributions. We will put out more details in the coming months.
But we also want to make improvements to our NS system. These new initiatives are from the NS Review Committee, which some Members have asked about, which is chaired by the Deputy Secretary (Administration) of MINDEF and the Chief of Army. Three key changes are proposed.
First, to optimise our precious manpower resource, we will now use functional assessments as part of the pre-enlistment medical screening. I think Mr Lim Biow Chuan and Mr Mohd Fahmi Aliman asked about this. What are functional assessments? Compared to general physical assessments, functional assessments are a more precise gauge of whether the Servicemen can perform specific vocations. At the same time, we have redesigned 1,000 jobs so that more Servicemen can contribute in areas they were not previously eligible for.
Second, Make-Up Pay. And this has been a longstanding issue. I am happy to announce that better data management across Government services, agencies will now allow claims of Make-Up Pay to be streamlined and, yes, the magic word, automated. Streamlined and automated. There will be a default base NS pay which NSmen can claim for In-Camp Training. This will be especially useful for those in informal employment and training. The base NS pay is set at $1,600 per month and prorated for the duration of NS call-ups. Over 100,000 NSmen and 25,000 employers will benefit from the automated Make-Up Pay claims and base NS Pay.
Third, we will increase the NS HOME awards, with higher cash components – an extra $2,000 in cash to each National Serviceman.
Senior Minister of State Heng Chee How will provide more details on these changes, as well as several others.
This four-service Next Gen SAF, with committed and capable NSmen, will better position Singapore to deal with both conventional and emerging threats. Our deterrence depends on a strong Next Gen SAF. That is the main prong. But another prong is good relations, which many Members have talked about, particularly defence relations, with like-minded partners.
Mr Ang Wei Neng and Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked about our approach. As a small country, Singapore needs as many friends as we can have. Having a strong network of defence partners has allowed us to build up our defence capabilities, train overseas and cooperate on strategic issues critical to our security.
In the past year, we maintained high-level defence engagements. For example, US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin made his introductory visit to Singapore in July and we concluded a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Concerning Cooperation in Cyberspace with the US Department of Defense in August. With China, I met Minister for National Defense General Wei Fenghe virtually in June. The RSN held joint naval exercises with the Chinese People’s Liberation Army via a “contactless” modality twice last year.
With India, we signed an MOU in January for the SAF to conduct weapon firings in India’s Chandipur Integrated Test Range. We renewed the Singapore-Vietnam Defence Cooperation Agreement in February. We have also concluded new defence cooperation agreements with a few Baltic States, to institutionalise our professional exchanges. This is interesting. We decided that the Baltic States were of interest and this happened before Ukraine. Now, we are even more interested. So, I think that cooperation will bear more fruit.
Closer to home, we conducted Exercise Safkar Indopura with the Indonesian Army in November, the first physical exercise between our Army and a foreign counterpart. In January, Indonesian Defence Minister Prabowo Subianto and I signed a Joint Statement on our agreement to bring into force the 2007 Defence Cooperation Agreement (DCA) and its Implementing Arrangement between SAF and the Indonesian Armed Forces for the Military Training Area in Indonesia.
Mr Henry Kwek asked what the implication of this is. The DCA will strengthen the strategic relationship between our defence establishments and promote closer interaction and cooperation between our armed forces.
Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked about our approach to ADMM-Plus and ADMM. It is, indeed, the de facto multilateral defence grouping in Asia, and we have taken the lead on tackling threats in the cyber and information domains by establishing the ADMM Cybersecurity and Information Centre of Excellence, which now provides monthly reports for all ASEAN Member States. Similarly, SAF’s Counter Terrorism Information Facility (CTIF) has been in operation since 2020 and 11 foreign liaison officers are stationed there. The CTIF produces timely and actionable counter-terrorism intelligence.
I am also pleased that, this year, the Shangri-La Dialogue will resume in June physically, after a two-year hiatus.
Mr Chairman, let me also update Members on MINDEF/SAF’s major green initiatives, which Mr Don Wee has asked about, which I announced at the last COS, to reduce the growth of overall emissions by two-thirds by 2030.
The SAF Sustainability Office, led by SAF’s Chief of Staff-Joint Staff, has convened an external panel comprising experts to provide insights on implementation plans to meet our sustainability targets.
Members have asked for updates, let me give some. By the end of this year, about a quarter of SAF camps will have solar panels installed to deliver 20 megawatt peak of electricity. This is equivalent to the consumption of around 5,000 4-room households. By 2025, it will jump from a quarter to two-thirds of our camps generating 50 megawatt peak of electricity. Smart Metering Systems will also be installed to track electricity and water consumption automatically, starting with Jurong Camp, Paya Lebar Airbase and Changi Naval Base.
RSAF has commenced trials for the use of green fuel for its F-16 Fighting Falcons. These efforts and others will help us meet our emission targets by 2030.
I am thankful that Members of this House have supported our budget each year. On MINDEF and SAF’s part, our responsibility is to spend prudently and effectively to build a strong national defence, as I have detailed.
But it is gratifying to me, and to Members here, too, that SAF is a national asset to deploy in situations like the current COVID-19 pandemic. When Singapore experienced a resurgence of cases due to the Delta and Omicron variants, MINDEF and SAF personnel were called upon to assist MOH to provide operations planning capabilities, staff contact tracing, call centres or to man emergency departments. SAF also stood up the Home Recovery Task Group to better manage the home recovery programme for patients, and NSmen also helped as Home Vaccination Teams and Mobile Vaccination Teams. Our defence scientists and engineers contributed a variety of support systems.
Members have asked how we helped overseas. And, indeed, we did, beyond Singapore’s shores. Last year, SAF’s Changi Regional Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief Coordination Centre coordinated the transfer of medical equipment and supplies to regional countries worst hit by COVID-19, including the shipment of over 500 tonnes of oxygen at Indonesia’s request as part of the \"Oxygen Shuttle\" programme.
Mr Chairman, let me thank Members of this House for their steadfast commitment and support for a robust national defence through a strong SAF. This year, particularly because of the events in Ukraine, I think Singaporeans need less convincing that it is our collective responsibility to keep Singapore safe and secure for ourselves and successive generations. So, we were pleasantly pleased that others were saying the right things on behalf of MINDEF and SAF, and of their own convictions, of course.
But I think salutary lessons have sunk in and, indeed, some Singaporeans have sent me emails. Let me just quote from two of them.
One is from Mr Tee KH: “I used to take my in-camp training as a ‘holiday’ camp till I realised how important it is to defend Singapore when Iraq invaded tiny Kuwait. Now a retiree and from the Merdeka Generation, I reminded my son who is serving NS to take his training seriously. The greater the force of dutiful citizens who are actively serving their country, defending the weak, fighting for freedom and doing what is right, the better chance that wars will end quickly and the less chance wars will even begin.”
The second is from Mr Cheng CF: “If Singaporeans don’t defend our country, nobody will help us. I am 67, a retired NSman. But as long as I am fit, I will not hesitate to don my uniform again to help my fellow Singaporeans to defend our country. This is my country, my home and soil.”
As long as we have Singaporeans who share the deep resolve and conviction that Mr Tee and Mr Cheng shared, then, I say, our future remains secure. [Applause.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Committee of Supply Reporting Progress","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Minister for Defence (Dr Ng Eng Hen): Mr Chairman, may I seek your consent to move that progress be reported now and leave be asked to sit again tomorrow?
The Chairman: I give my consent.
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That progress be reported now and leave be asked to sit again tomorrow.\" [Dr Ng Eng Hen]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Thereupon Mr Deputy Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House. (proc text)]
Dr Ng Eng Hen: Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made progress on the Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 2022/2023, and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.
Mr Deputy Speaker: So be it.
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn to 10.30 am tomorrow.\" – [Mr Zaqy Mohamad]. (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 7.46 pm.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal to Ban Practice of Declawing Cats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"9 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for National Development whether the Ministry will consider banning the practice of declawing cats and, if not, why not.
Mr Desmond Lee: NParks takes a firm stance against the practice of declawing cats. Such a procedure should only be performed as an absolute last resort or as an alternative to euthanasia.
NParks has a framework in place to regulate this practice. The Code of Ethics for Veterinarians requires veterinarians to advise pet owners of non-surgical alternatives and to ensure that all reasonable efforts have been made to manage or treat the issue prior to declawing. Failure to do so can result in written warnings, composition fines or even suspension or revocation of veterinary licences. This regulatory approach remains relevant. NParks will also continue to work with its animal welfare partners to educate pet owners, such as through the Animal and Veterinary Service’s webinars and Pets’ Day Out workshops, on alternative ways to manage the behavioural issues of cats.
Should the public come across suspected cases where declawing of cats has been performed without due justification, we ask that they inform NParks, so that it can investigate and take the necessary actions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal to Make Micro-chipping of Cats Mandatory","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"10 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for National Development whether micro-chipping of pet cats can be made mandatory.
Mr Desmond Lee: NParks currently only requires dogs to be licensed and microchipped in Singapore, as dogs are the most common cause of rabies transmission from animals to humans globally. This enables traceability for the purposes of disease control and serves to protect public health.
As part of our broader efforts to improve standards in the pet sector, we have been engaging stakeholders on a range of issues, such as improving dog rehoming and adoption processes, as well as raising standards of pet boarders and breeders. We will also work with stakeholders to review measures to strengthen the traceability of cats as part of these efforts, which may involve microchipping, if necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Annual Number of Applications to Legal Aid Bureau on Grants of Probate or Letters of Administration","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Law for the past five years, what is (i) the annual number of applications to the Legal Aid Bureau in respect of grants of probate or letters of administration and (ii) the annual percentage of applicants who have successfully received such legal aid assistance.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Legal Aid Bureau (LAB) provides legal advice and legal assistance on civil matters to Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents who pass the means test. Applicants for legal aid also have to pass a merits test.
The statistics on the applications LAB received between 2017 and 2021 in respect of grants of probate or letters of administration are provided in the table below.
Applicants who do not qualify for legal aid may engage a private lawyer. They may also seek help from the Law Society Pro Bono Services, the Community Justice Centre and more than 50 other legal clinics run by various community, religious and voluntary welfare organisations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Annual Number of Applications to Legal Aid Bureau to Appoint Deputy under Mental Capacity Act","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Law for the past five years, what is (i) the annual number of applications to the Legal Aid Bureau in respect of applications to appoint a deputy under the Mental Capacity Act and (ii) the annual percentage of applicants who have successfully received such legal aid assistance.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Legal Aid Bureau (LAB) provides legal advice and legal assistance on civil matters to Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents who pass the means test. Applicants for legal aid also have to pass a merits test.
The statistics on the applications LAB received between 2017 and 2021 in respect of applications to appoint a deputy under the Mental Capacity Act are provided in the table below.
Applicants who do not qualify for legal aid may engage a private lawyer. They may also seek help from the Law Society Pro Bono Services, the Community Justice Centre and more than 50 other legal clinics run by various community, religious and voluntary welfare organisations.
Litigants-in-persons may apply online for urgent short-term orders (limited to $5,000) and long-term orders up to $80,000 that fall under the Mental Capacity Act simplified track via the Family Integrated Application Management Systems (iFAMs).
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Improvements in Attendance Rate of Primary and Secondary Students with Absenteeism Issues and Supported by UPLIFT","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Education with regard to Primary and Secondary students with school absenteeism issues and supported by UPLIFT (Uplifting Pupils in Life and Inspiring Families Taskforce), what percentage of them have seen an improvement to an attendance rate of 90% or more.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Uplifting Pupils in Life and Inspiring Families Taskforce (UPLIFT) aims to enhance upstream wraparound support for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. UPLIFT comprises several initiatives to support these students, including strengthening after-school engagement and care through school-based Student Care Centres in Primary schools and GEAR-UP in Secondary schools, partnering the community through the UPLIFT Community Network, and UPLIFT Enhanced School Resourcing to support whole-school interventions for students with greater needs.
With these efforts, about eight in 10 students who exhibited absenteeism issues in 2020 have seen their attendance improve to 90% or better the following year. This does not include those absent for medical and other valid reasons.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Enforcement Actions against Purveyors of False Claims of Pharmaceutical Products' Efficacy in Treating COVID-19","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Mr Darryl David asked the Minister for Health whether the Government can provide an update regarding enforcement actions taken against those who purvey false claims that certain pharmaceutical products are efficacious in treating COVID-19.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: MOH and the Health Sciences Authority (HSA) monitor websites and social media platforms, including online chatgroups, for false claims about the efficacy of certain pharmaceutical agents, such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, in treating COVID-19.
Evidence to date shows that these agents are ineffective in treating COVID-19, and their use is, in fact, associated with serious health risks to patients. On 15 October 2021, MOH issued a media statement to call out these websites and platforms and to debunk the misinformation found there. On 24 October 2021, a Correction Direction order was also issued to the \"Truth Warriors\" website for false statements of fact and misleading information relating to COVID-19 treatments. Various subsequent clarifications and facts have also been published by the Government, and MOH and HSA have proactively put up consumer advisories on their websites to increase public awareness.
From February 2020 to January 2022, HSA detected and directed the removal of 740 listings of pharmaceutical agents on e-commerce platforms and social media apps claiming to be effective in preventing or treating COVID-19. More than 150 sellers were issued with a stern warning.
Sellers who falsely advertise pharmaceutical products as being able to prevent or treat COVID-19 are liable to prosecution and, if convicted, may be imprisoned for up to 12 months and/or fined up to $20,000 under the Health Products Act. Individuals who bring in such pharmaceutical products and distribute them for use without a doctor’s prescription, with the intent to treat COVID-19, can be taken to task as unlicensed medical practitioners under the Medical Registration Act. Registered medical practitioners who promote or prescribe such pharmaceutical products outside their approved indications and outside the scope of a clinical trial may be – and, indeed, some have already been – referred to the Singapore Medical Council (SMC) for disciplinary action.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Studies on Effects of Introduction of Gender-neutral Fertility Leave on Employability of Individuals Using It","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether an update can be provided on any studies that have been undertaken by the Ministry to study the effects of introducing gender-neutral fertility leave on the employability of the individuals who use it; (b) whether such studies have been or will be conducted and, if so, when will the results of the studies be available; and (c) if no studies have been conducted yet, why not.
Dr Tan See Leng: I thank the Member for his question. The Ministry had provided an answer to his question a year ago. Since then, we have not undertaken any study on gender-neutral fertility leave. We have also not received any proposals from the research community to study this issue. As explained in the reply last year, researchers could apply to the Social Science Research Council if there is interest.
We will conduct useful studies where we can, taking into account available resources. It is not realistic to undertake every study that is suggested. However, we welcome other stakeholders to conduct robust studies on issues of interest and share the findings to enrich the discussion.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Efforts to Ensure Migrant Workers without Letter of Guarantee from Employers Can Access Medical Treatment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Manpower whether an update can be provided on the Ministry’s efforts to work with hospitals to ensure that migrant workers whose employers refuse to provide a letter of guarantee (LOG) or is unable to provide an LOG in a timely manner can access medical treatment.
Dr Tan See Leng: Employers are responsible to pay for the medical expenses of their migrant workers incurred in Singapore. This is to ensure that migrant workers receive the necessary medical care when they are in Singapore.
In cases involving medical emergencies, hospitals will provide prompt medical treatment without the need for a letter of guarantee (LOG) from the employer. Workers are provided such treatment, regardless of their employer’s ability to pay.
As for non-emergency cases, hospitals may ask for LOGs before treatment, to be assured that employers are aware of their worker’s medical condition and are able to pay for the bill. Workers may approach MOM for assistance to speak to their employers if their employers refuse to provide an LOG, resulting in them not being able to receive the necessary medical treatment. MOM has also been reviewing the coverage of the medical insurance, including streamlining the billing arrangements, to better facilitate treatment for migrant workers and migrant domestic workers and better help employers manage the medical bills of these workers. We will provide an update on the review soon.
For cases that do not require day surgeries or inpatient care, instead of visiting the hospital, migrant workers can access primary care services at regional medical centres or through 24/7 telemedicine consultations. The recently announced new primary healthcare system for migrant workers, including the Primary Care Plan, enables them to receive acute or chronic medical care that is accessible, affordable and in a timely manner.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Clarification by Minister for Finance","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WS","content":"[(proc text) The following statement was in the round-up speech given by the Minister for Finance (Mr Lawrence Wong) during the Debate on the Annual Budget Statement at the Sitting of 2 March 2022: (proc text)]
The Minister for Finance (Mr Lawrence Wong): The new Local Qualifying Salary (LQS) will take effect soon, from 1 April this year. [Please refer to Official Report, 2 March 2022, Vol 95, Issue No 52, Debate on Annual Budget Statement section.]
[(proc text) Written statement by Mr Lawrence Wong circulated with leave of the Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No 29(5): (proc text)]
I wish to make the following factual correction to my round-up speech during the Debate on the Annual Budget Statement at the Sitting of 2 March 2022. My speech should read as follows:
The Minister for Finance (Mr Lawrence Wong): The new Local Qualifying Salary (LQS) requirement will take effect soon, from 1 September this year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[{"annexureID":2128,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 1","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20220302/annex-Annex 1.pdf","fileName":"Annex 1.pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null},{"annexureID":2129,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 2","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20220302/annex-Annex 2.pdf","fileName":"Annex 2.pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null},{"annexureID":2130,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 3","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20220302/annex-Annex 3.pdf","fileName":"Annex 3.pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null},{"annexureID":2131,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 4","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20220302/annex-Annex 4.pdf","fileName":"Annex 4.pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null},{"annexureID":2132,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 5","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20220302/annex-Annex 5.pdf","fileName":"Annex 5.pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null}],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":4812,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Carrie Tan","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20220302/vernacular-Carrie Tan budget 2Mar2022 -Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Carrie Tan budget 2Mar2022 -Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":4813,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Carrie Tan","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20220302/vernacular-Carrie Tan budget part 2 2Mar2022 -Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Carrie Tan budget part 2 2Mar2022 -Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":4814,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Rahayu Mahzam","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20220302/vernacular-2 Mar 2022 - Parl Sec Rahayu - Speech on Budget Statement.pdf","fileName":"2 Mar 2022 - Parl Sec Rahayu - Speech on Budget Statement.pdf"},{"vernacularID":4815,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Joan Pereira","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20220302/vernacular-Joan Pereira Budget 2Mar2022 -Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Joan Pereira Budget 2Mar2022 -Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":4816,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Hany Soh","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20220302/vernacular-Hany Soh Budget 2Mar2022 -Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Hany Soh Budget 2Mar2022 -Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":4817,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Lawrence Wong","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20220302/vernacular-Lawrence Wong Budget RUS 2Mar2021 -Chinese (MOF).pdf","fileName":"Lawrence Wong Budget RUS 2Mar2021 -Chinese (MOF).pdf"},{"vernacularID":4818,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Sharael Taha","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20220302/vernacular-2 Mar 2022 - Mr Sharael Taha - MOF Cut.pdf","fileName":"2 Mar 2022 - Mr Sharael Taha - MOF Cut.pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}